[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200304164913.GB1763256@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 17:49:13 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] VFS: Filesystem information and notifications [ver
#17]
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:22:41PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 10:01:33AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-03-03 at 14:03 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > Actually, I like this idea (the syscall, not just the unlimited
> > > beers).
> > > Maybe this could make a lot of sense, I'll write some actual tests
> > > for
> > > it now that syscalls are getting "heavy" again due to CPU vendors
> > > finally paying the price for their madness...
> >
> > The problem isn't with open->read->close but with the mount info.
> > changing between reads (ie. seq file read takes and drops the
> > needed lock between reads at least once).
>
> readfile() is not reaction to mountinfo.
>
> The motivation is that we have many places with trivial
> open->read->close for very small text files due to /sys and /proc. The
> current way how kernel delivers these small strings to userspace seems
> pretty inefficient if we can do the same by one syscall.
>
> Karel
>
> $ strace -e openat,read,close -c ps aux
> ...
> % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
> 43.32 0.004190 4 987 read
> 31.42 0.003039 3 844 4 openat
> 25.26 0.002443 2 842 close
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
> 100.00 0.009672 2673 4 total
>
> $ strace -e openat,read,close -c lsns
> ...
> % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
> 39.95 0.001567 2 593 openat
> 30.93 0.001213 2 597 close
> 29.12 0.001142 3 365 read
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
> 100.00 0.003922 1555 total
>
>
> $ strace -e openat,read,close -c lscpu
> ...
> % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
> 44.67 0.001480 7 189 52 openat
> 34.77 0.001152 6 180 read
> 20.56 0.000681 4 140 close
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
> 100.00 0.003313 509 52 total
As a "real-world" test, would you recommend me converting one of the
above tools to my implementation of readfile to see how/if it actually
makes sense, or do you have some other tool you would rather see me try?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists