[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110905185524.GR12086@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 11:55:24 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/16] ext4: Add metadata checksumming
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 06:19:16PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Andi" == Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> writes:
>
> Andi> Doesn't have any performance numbers.
>
> It's been a while since I read them. I thought they had some compelling
> numbers. Anyway, made a big difference in real life testing here. For
> sustained I/O we're talking an order of magnitude.
>
>
> Andi> You need to keep in mind that PCLMULQDQ uses FPU state, so any
> Andi> speedup for the kernel must be large enough to amortize the cost
> Andi> of saving the FPU state.
>
> Yeah, my test cases were for bulk database I/O, not for writing a
> handful of fs metadata blocks. Plus for the DB tests the CRC was
> generated in userland.
>
> I seem to recall Joel picking something other than the hw-accelerated
> CRC32C for ocfs2 metadata and that didn't cause any problems.
Yes, he picked regular CRC32, which has a reasonably fast slice-by-4
software implementation. For ext4, my original choices were hw acceleration or
the slower single-byte lookup table. With hw acceleration the overhead of
adding the checksums is about ~10% (for just the metadata operations); with the
single-byte table it was about 50%; and with the proposed slice-by-8 patch it's
about 20%. Hopefully I can optimize this even more in the future.
> That said, I do see a difference between IP checksum and CRC on normal
> FS workloads with DIX enabled here.
I would hope so, since the IP checksum is much simpler than any CRC...
--D
> Andi> Typically that only works out for quite large buffers, but kernel
> Andi> buffers are relatively small.
>
> *nod*
>
> --
> Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists