[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f475ae05-733d-b0a2-cadc-a5913f521153@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:52:22 +0800
From: kemi <kemi.wang@...el.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Darrick J Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] buffer: Avoid setting buffer bits that are already set
On 2017年10月24日 00:19, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 10:27 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
>> It's expensive to set buffer flags that are already set, because that
>> causes a costly cache line transition.
>>
>> A common case is setting the "verified" flag during ext4 writes.
>> This patch checks for the flag being set first.
>>
>> With the AIM7/creat-clo benchmark testing on a 48G ramdisk based-on ext4
>> file system, we see 3.3%(15431->15936) improvement of aim7.jobs-per-min on
>> a 2-sockets broadwell platform.
>>
>> What the benchmark does is: it forks 3000 processes, and each process do
>> the following:
>> a) open a new file
>> b) close the file
>> c) delete the file
>> until loop=100*1000 times.
>>
>> The original patch is contributed by Andi Kleen.
>
> We discussed this recently, in reference to this commit:
>
> commit 7fcbbaf18392f0b17c95e2f033c8ccf87eecde1d
> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
> Date: Thu May 22 11:54:16 2014 -0700
>
> mm/filemap.c: avoid always dirtying mapping->flags on O_DIRECT
>
> which made a massive difference, as the changelog details.
>
> blk-mq uses this extensively as well, where possible. The problem is
> that it always has to be explained, hence the recent discussion was
> around perhaps adding
>
> set_bit_if_not_set()
> clear_bit_if_set()
>
> or similar functions, to document in a single location why this matters.
> Additionally, some archs may be able to implement that in an efficient
> manner.
>
> You can add my reviewed-by to the below,
Thanks.
I'll see if I can find some
> time to implement the above in a nice way.
Agree. Maybe something like test_and_set_bit() would be more suitable.
In the mean time, you may
> want to consider adding a comment to the function explaining why you
> have done it that way.
>
Sure.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists