[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20c5b30a-b787-1f46-f997-7542a87033f8@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:26:59 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"karam . lee" <karam.lee@....com>, seungho1.park@....com,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] fs: use on-stack-bio if backing device has
BDI_CAP_SYNC capability
On 08/11/2017 04:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:06:24PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> I like it, but do you think we should switch to sbvec[<constant>] to
>> preclude pathological cases where nr_pages is large?
>
> Yes, please.
>
> Then I'd like to see that the on-stack bio even matters for
> mpage_readpage / mpage_writepage. Compared to all the buffer head
> overhead the bio allocation should not actually matter in practice.
I'm skeptical for that path, too. I also wonder how far we could go
with just doing a per-cpu bio recycling facility, to reduce the cost
of having to allocate a bio. The on-stack bio parts are fine for
simple use case, where simple means that the patch just special
cases the allocation, and doesn't have to change much else.
I had a patch for bio recycling and batched freeing a year or two
ago, I'll see if I can find and resurrect it.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists