linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: introduce object readahead to log recovery

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEH94LixszfG+1i3mqRiDdmPhH1MNNu3K4OwestrS_E4OjZiOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:17:15 +0800
From:	Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@...il.com>
To:	Ben Myers <bpm@....com>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel mlist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	xfstests <xfs@....sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: introduce object readahead to log recovery

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Ben Myers <bpm@....com> wrote:
> Hey Zhi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:07:32PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 05:59:07PM +0800, zwu.kernel@...il.com wrote:
>> >> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >>
>> >>   It can take a long time to run log recovery operation because it is
>> >> single threaded and is bound by read latency. We can find that it took
>> >> most of the time to wait for the read IO to occur, so if one object
>> >> readahead is introduced to log recovery, it will obviously reduce the
>> >> log recovery time.
>> >>
>> >> Log recovery time stat:
>> >>
>> >>           w/o this patch        w/ this patch
>> >>
>> >> real:        0m15.023s             0m7.802s
>> >> user:        0m0.001s              0m0.001s
>> >> sys:         0m0.246s              0m0.107s
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 162 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> >>  fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.h |   2 +
>> >>  2 files changed, 159 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
>> >> index 7681b19..029826f 100644
>> >> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
>> >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
>> >> @@ -3116,6 +3116,111 @@ xlog_recover_free_trans(
>> >>       kmem_free(trans);
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >> +STATIC void
>> >> +xlog_recover_buffer_ra_pass2(
>> >> +     struct xlog                     *log,
>> >> +     struct xlog_recover_item        *item)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     xfs_buf_log_format_t    *buf_f = item->ri_buf[0].i_addr;
>> >> +     xfs_mount_t             *mp = log->l_mp;
>> >
>> >         struct xfs_buf_log_format
>> >         struct xfs_mount
>> Why? *_t is also used in a lot of other places.
>
> It is just a general style preference for using the struct instead of the _t in
> the xfs codebase.  Over the course of the past few years they've slowly been
> converted in this direction, and we prefer not to add any more _t if it can be
> avoided.
Got it, thanks. I have sent out v3 with this style change.

>
> -Ben



-- 
Regards,

Zhi Yong Wu
--
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/