[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4470a31c-802e-51e2-75b0-362c05fecfb8@fastmail.fm>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:30:44 +0200
From: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>
To: Jaco Kroon <jaco@....co.za>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: enable larger read buffers for readdir.
On 7/26/23 17:26, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023/07/26 15:53, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/23 12:59, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Jaco Kroon <jaco@....co.za>
>>> ---
>>> fs/fuse/Kconfig | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>> fs/fuse/readdir.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/Kconfig b/fs/fuse/Kconfig
>>> index 038ed0b9aaa5..0783f9ee5cd3 100644
>>> --- a/fs/fuse/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/fs/fuse/Kconfig
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,22 @@ config FUSE_FS
>>> If you want to develop a userspace FS, or if you want to use
>>> a filesystem based on FUSE, answer Y or M.
>>> +config FUSE_READDIR_ORDER
>>> + int
>>> + range 0 5
>>> + default 5
>>> + help
>>> + readdir performance varies greatly depending on the size of
>>> the read.
>>> + Larger buffers results in larger reads, thus fewer reads and
>>> higher
>>> + performance in return.
>>> +
>>> + You may want to reduce this value on seriously constrained
>>> memory
>>> + systems where 128KiB (assuming 4KiB pages) cache pages is
>>> not ideal.
>>> +
>>> + This value reprents the order of the number of pages to
>>> allocate (ie,
>>> + the shift value). A value of 0 is thus 1 page (4KiB) where
>>> 5 is 32
>>> + pages (128KiB).
>>> +
>>
>> I like the idea of a larger readdir size, but shouldn't that be a
>> server/daemon/library decision which size to use, instead of kernel
>> compile time? So should be part of FUSE_INIT negotiation?
>
> Yes sure, but there still needs to be a default. And one page at a time
> doesn't cut it.
>
> -- snip --
>
>>> - page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + page = alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL, READDIR_PAGES_ORDER);
>>
>> I guess that should become folio alloc(), one way or the other. Now I
>> think order 0 was chosen before to avoid risk of allocation failure. I
>> guess it might work to try a large size and to fall back to 0 when
>> that failed. Or fail back to the slower vmalloc.
>
> If this varies then a bunch of other code will become somewhat more
> complex, especially if one alloc succeeds, and then a follow-up succeeds.
Yeah, the better choice is kvmalloc/kvfree which handles it internally.
>
> I'm not familiar with the differences between the different mechanisms
> available for allocation.
>
> -- snip --
>
>> Thanks,
> My pleasure,
> Jaco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists