[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM7-yPRirVPsFDa37HC8shSwXhk=Bmb490z8=Bs2g0w=A9BhCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 18:15:32 +0900
From: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@...il.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, rdunlap@...radead.org,
masahiroy@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
peter.enderborg@...y.com, krzk@...nel.org,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, broonie@...nel.org,
matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
jpa@....mail.kapsi.fi, nivedita@...m.mit.edu,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, orson.zhai@...soc.com,
Takahiro Akashi <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>, clm@...com,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, dsterba@...e.com,
dushistov@...l.ru,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] lib/find_bit.c: Add find_last_zero_bit
> btrfs' free space cache v1 is going to be removed some time in the
> future so introducing kernel-wide change just for its own sake is a bit
> premature.
Sorry, I don't know about this fact Thanks..
> Also do you have measurements showing it indeed improves
> performances?
I'm not test btrfs' free space cache directly, But I used find_bit_benchmark.c.
here is the result of find_bit_benchmark.
Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
[ +0.001874] find_next_bit: 816326 ns, 163323 iterations
[ +0.000822] find_next_zero_bit: 808977 ns, 164357 iterations
[ +0.000571] find_last_bit: 561444 ns, 163323 iterations
[ +0.000619] find_last_zero_bit: 609533 ns, 164357 iterations
[ +0.002043] find_first_bit: 2011390 ns, 16204
iterations
[ +0.000003] find_next_and_bit: 59 ns, 0 iterations
[ +0.000001]
Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
[ +0.000068] find_next_bit: 34573 ns, 653 iterations
[ +0.001691] find_next_zero_bit: 1663556 ns, 327027 iterations
[ +0.000010] find_last_bit: 7864 ns, 653 iterations
[ +0.001235] find_last_zero_bit: 1216449 ns, 327027 iterations
[ +0.000664] find_first_bit: 653148 ns, 653 iterations
[ +0.000002] find_next_and_bit: 44 ns, 0 iterations
as this result, the find_last_zero_bit is a little fast, and logically,
because find_each_clear_bit is iterate till the specified index (i) times,
But find_last_zero_bit in that case call one time
(find_each_clear_bit call i times but find_last_zero_bit call only one time)
So, i think it has a slight improvement.
Thanks.
Levi.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 6:01 PM Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6.12.20 г. 10:56 ч., Yun Levi wrote:
> >> This, and the change above this, are not related to this patch so you
> >> might not want to include them.
> >
> >> Also, why is this patch series even needed? I don't see a justification
> >> for it anywhere, only "what" this patch is, not "why".
> >
> > I think the find_last_zero_bit will help to improve in
> > 7th patch's change and It can be used in the future.
> > But if my thinking is bad.. Please let me know..
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Levi.
> >
>
> btrfs' free space cache v1 is going to be removed some time in the
> future so introducing kernel-wide change just for its own sake is a bit
> premature. Also do you have measurements showing it indeed improves
> performances?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists