2
0
mirror of https://github.com/edk2-porting/linux-next.git synced 2024-12-28 07:04:00 +08:00
linux-next/fs/mbcache.c

433 lines
12 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/list.h>
#include <linux/list_bl.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/workqueue.h>
#include <linux/mbcache.h>
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/*
* Mbcache is a simple key-value store. Keys need not be unique, however
* key-value pairs are expected to be unique (we use this fact in
* mb_cache_entry_delete()).
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
*
* Ext2 and ext4 use this cache for deduplication of extended attribute blocks.
* Ext4 also uses it for deduplication of xattr values stored in inodes.
* They use hash of data as a key and provide a value that may represent a
* block or inode number. That's why keys need not be unique (hash of different
* data may be the same). However user provided value always uniquely
* identifies a cache entry.
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
*
* We provide functions for creation and removal of entries, search by key,
* and a special "delete entry with given key-value pair" operation. Fixed
* size hash table is used for fast key lookups.
*/
struct mb_cache {
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/* Hash table of entries */
struct hlist_bl_head *c_hash;
/* log2 of hash table size */
int c_bucket_bits;
/* Maximum entries in cache to avoid degrading hash too much */
unsigned long c_max_entries;
/* Protects c_list, c_entry_count */
spinlock_t c_list_lock;
struct list_head c_list;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/* Number of entries in cache */
unsigned long c_entry_count;
struct shrinker c_shrink;
/* Work for shrinking when the cache has too many entries */
struct work_struct c_shrink_work;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
};
static struct kmem_cache *mb_entry_cache;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
static unsigned long mb_cache_shrink(struct mb_cache *cache,
unsigned long nr_to_scan);
static inline struct hlist_bl_head *mb_cache_entry_head(struct mb_cache *cache,
u32 key)
{
return &cache->c_hash[hash_32(key, cache->c_bucket_bits)];
}
/*
* Number of entries to reclaim synchronously when there are too many entries
* in cache
*/
#define SYNC_SHRINK_BATCH 64
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/*
* mb_cache_entry_create - create entry in cache
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
* @cache - cache where the entry should be created
* @mask - gfp mask with which the entry should be allocated
* @key - key of the entry
* @value - value of the entry
* @reusable - is the entry reusable by others?
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
*
* Creates entry in @cache with key @key and value @value. The function returns
* -EBUSY if entry with the same key and value already exists in cache.
* Otherwise 0 is returned.
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
*/
int mb_cache_entry_create(struct mb_cache *cache, gfp_t mask, u32 key,
u64 value, bool reusable)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
struct mb_cache_entry *entry, *dup;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
struct hlist_bl_node *dup_node;
struct hlist_bl_head *head;
/* Schedule background reclaim if there are too many entries */
if (cache->c_entry_count >= cache->c_max_entries)
schedule_work(&cache->c_shrink_work);
/* Do some sync reclaim if background reclaim cannot keep up */
if (cache->c_entry_count >= 2*cache->c_max_entries)
mb_cache_shrink(cache, SYNC_SHRINK_BATCH);
entry = kmem_cache_alloc(mb_entry_cache, mask);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
if (!entry)
return -ENOMEM;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->e_list);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/* One ref for hash, one ref returned */
atomic_set(&entry->e_refcnt, 1);
entry->e_key = key;
entry->e_value = value;
entry->e_reusable = reusable;
head = mb_cache_entry_head(cache, key);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
hlist_bl_lock(head);
hlist_bl_for_each_entry(dup, dup_node, head, e_hash_list) {
if (dup->e_key == key && dup->e_value == value) {
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
hlist_bl_unlock(head);
kmem_cache_free(mb_entry_cache, entry);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
return -EBUSY;
}
}
hlist_bl_add_head(&entry->e_hash_list, head);
hlist_bl_unlock(head);
spin_lock(&cache->c_list_lock);
list_add_tail(&entry->e_list, &cache->c_list);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/* Grab ref for LRU list */
atomic_inc(&entry->e_refcnt);
cache->c_entry_count++;
spin_unlock(&cache->c_list_lock);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mb_cache_entry_create);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
void __mb_cache_entry_free(struct mb_cache_entry *entry)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
kmem_cache_free(mb_entry_cache, entry);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mb_cache_entry_free);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
static struct mb_cache_entry *__entry_find(struct mb_cache *cache,
struct mb_cache_entry *entry,
u32 key)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
struct mb_cache_entry *old_entry = entry;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
struct hlist_bl_node *node;
struct hlist_bl_head *head;
head = mb_cache_entry_head(cache, key);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
hlist_bl_lock(head);
if (entry && !hlist_bl_unhashed(&entry->e_hash_list))
node = entry->e_hash_list.next;
else
node = hlist_bl_first(head);
while (node) {
entry = hlist_bl_entry(node, struct mb_cache_entry,
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
e_hash_list);
if (entry->e_key == key && entry->e_reusable) {
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
atomic_inc(&entry->e_refcnt);
goto out;
}
node = node->next;
}
entry = NULL;
out:
hlist_bl_unlock(head);
if (old_entry)
mb_cache_entry_put(cache, old_entry);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
return entry;
}
/*
* mb_cache_entry_find_first - find the first reusable entry with the given key
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
* @cache: cache where we should search
* @key: key to look for
*
* Search in @cache for a reusable entry with key @key. Grabs reference to the
* first reusable entry found and returns the entry.
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
*/
struct mb_cache_entry *mb_cache_entry_find_first(struct mb_cache *cache,
u32 key)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
return __entry_find(cache, NULL, key);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mb_cache_entry_find_first);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/*
* mb_cache_entry_find_next - find next reusable entry with the same key
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
* @cache: cache where we should search
* @entry: entry to start search from
*
* Finds next reusable entry in the hash chain which has the same key as @entry.
* If @entry is unhashed (which can happen when deletion of entry races with the
* search), finds the first reusable entry in the hash chain. The function drops
* reference to @entry and returns with a reference to the found entry.
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
*/
struct mb_cache_entry *mb_cache_entry_find_next(struct mb_cache *cache,
struct mb_cache_entry *entry)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
return __entry_find(cache, entry, entry->e_key);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mb_cache_entry_find_next);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/*
* mb_cache_entry_get - get a cache entry by value (and key)
* @cache - cache we work with
* @key - key
* @value - value
*/
struct mb_cache_entry *mb_cache_entry_get(struct mb_cache *cache, u32 key,
u64 value)
{
struct hlist_bl_node *node;
struct hlist_bl_head *head;
struct mb_cache_entry *entry;
head = mb_cache_entry_head(cache, key);
hlist_bl_lock(head);
hlist_bl_for_each_entry(entry, node, head, e_hash_list) {
if (entry->e_key == key && entry->e_value == value) {
atomic_inc(&entry->e_refcnt);
goto out;
}
}
entry = NULL;
out:
hlist_bl_unlock(head);
return entry;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mb_cache_entry_get);
/* mb_cache_entry_delete - remove a cache entry
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
* @cache - cache we work with
* @key - key
* @value - value
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
*
* Remove entry from cache @cache with key @key and value @value.
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
*/
void mb_cache_entry_delete(struct mb_cache *cache, u32 key, u64 value)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
struct hlist_bl_node *node;
struct hlist_bl_head *head;
struct mb_cache_entry *entry;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
head = mb_cache_entry_head(cache, key);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
hlist_bl_lock(head);
hlist_bl_for_each_entry(entry, node, head, e_hash_list) {
if (entry->e_key == key && entry->e_value == value) {
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/* We keep hash list reference to keep entry alive */
hlist_bl_del_init(&entry->e_hash_list);
hlist_bl_unlock(head);
spin_lock(&cache->c_list_lock);
if (!list_empty(&entry->e_list)) {
list_del_init(&entry->e_list);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
cache->c_entry_count--;
atomic_dec(&entry->e_refcnt);
}
spin_unlock(&cache->c_list_lock);
mb_cache_entry_put(cache, entry);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
return;
}
}
hlist_bl_unlock(head);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mb_cache_entry_delete);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/* mb_cache_entry_touch - cache entry got used
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
* @cache - cache the entry belongs to
* @entry - entry that got used
*
* Marks entry as used to give hit higher chances of surviving in cache.
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
*/
void mb_cache_entry_touch(struct mb_cache *cache,
struct mb_cache_entry *entry)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
entry->e_referenced = 1;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mb_cache_entry_touch);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
static unsigned long mb_cache_count(struct shrinker *shrink,
struct shrink_control *sc)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
struct mb_cache *cache = container_of(shrink, struct mb_cache,
c_shrink);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
return cache->c_entry_count;
}
/* Shrink number of entries in cache */
static unsigned long mb_cache_shrink(struct mb_cache *cache,
unsigned long nr_to_scan)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
struct mb_cache_entry *entry;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
struct hlist_bl_head *head;
unsigned long shrunk = 0;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
spin_lock(&cache->c_list_lock);
while (nr_to_scan-- && !list_empty(&cache->c_list)) {
entry = list_first_entry(&cache->c_list,
struct mb_cache_entry, e_list);
if (entry->e_referenced) {
entry->e_referenced = 0;
list_move_tail(&entry->e_list, &cache->c_list);
continue;
}
list_del_init(&entry->e_list);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
cache->c_entry_count--;
/*
* We keep LRU list reference so that entry doesn't go away
* from under us.
*/
spin_unlock(&cache->c_list_lock);
head = mb_cache_entry_head(cache, entry->e_key);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
hlist_bl_lock(head);
if (!hlist_bl_unhashed(&entry->e_hash_list)) {
hlist_bl_del_init(&entry->e_hash_list);
atomic_dec(&entry->e_refcnt);
}
hlist_bl_unlock(head);
if (mb_cache_entry_put(cache, entry))
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
shrunk++;
cond_resched();
spin_lock(&cache->c_list_lock);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
}
spin_unlock(&cache->c_list_lock);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
return shrunk;
}
static unsigned long mb_cache_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
struct shrink_control *sc)
{
struct mb_cache *cache = container_of(shrink, struct mb_cache,
c_shrink);
return mb_cache_shrink(cache, sc->nr_to_scan);
}
/* We shrink 1/X of the cache when we have too many entries in it */
#define SHRINK_DIVISOR 16
static void mb_cache_shrink_worker(struct work_struct *work)
{
struct mb_cache *cache = container_of(work, struct mb_cache,
c_shrink_work);
mb_cache_shrink(cache, cache->c_max_entries / SHRINK_DIVISOR);
}
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/*
* mb_cache_create - create cache
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
* @bucket_bits: log2 of the hash table size
*
* Create cache for keys with 2^bucket_bits hash entries.
*/
struct mb_cache *mb_cache_create(int bucket_bits)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
struct mb_cache *cache;
unsigned long bucket_count = 1UL << bucket_bits;
unsigned long i;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
cache = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mb_cache), GFP_KERNEL);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
if (!cache)
goto err_out;
cache->c_bucket_bits = bucket_bits;
cache->c_max_entries = bucket_count << 4;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cache->c_list);
spin_lock_init(&cache->c_list_lock);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
cache->c_hash = kmalloc(bucket_count * sizeof(struct hlist_bl_head),
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!cache->c_hash) {
kfree(cache);
goto err_out;
}
for (i = 0; i < bucket_count; i++)
INIT_HLIST_BL_HEAD(&cache->c_hash[i]);
cache->c_shrink.count_objects = mb_cache_count;
cache->c_shrink.scan_objects = mb_cache_scan;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
cache->c_shrink.seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS;
if (register_shrinker(&cache->c_shrink)) {
kfree(cache->c_hash);
kfree(cache);
goto err_out;
}
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
INIT_WORK(&cache->c_shrink_work, mb_cache_shrink_worker);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
return cache;
err_out:
return NULL;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mb_cache_create);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
/*
* mb_cache_destroy - destroy cache
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
* @cache: the cache to destroy
*
* Free all entries in cache and cache itself. Caller must make sure nobody
* (except shrinker) can reach @cache when calling this.
*/
void mb_cache_destroy(struct mb_cache *cache)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
struct mb_cache_entry *entry, *next;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
unregister_shrinker(&cache->c_shrink);
/*
* We don't bother with any locking. Cache must not be used at this
* point.
*/
list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, next, &cache->c_list, e_list) {
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
if (!hlist_bl_unhashed(&entry->e_hash_list)) {
hlist_bl_del_init(&entry->e_hash_list);
atomic_dec(&entry->e_refcnt);
} else
WARN_ON(1);
list_del(&entry->e_list);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
WARN_ON(atomic_read(&entry->e_refcnt) != 1);
mb_cache_entry_put(cache, entry);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
}
kfree(cache->c_hash);
kfree(cache);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mb_cache_destroy);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
static int __init mbcache_init(void)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
mb_entry_cache = kmem_cache_create("mbcache",
sizeof(struct mb_cache_entry), 0,
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT|SLAB_MEM_SPREAD, NULL);
if (!mb_entry_cache)
return -ENOMEM;
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
return 0;
}
static void __exit mbcache_exit(void)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
{
kmem_cache_destroy(mb_entry_cache);
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
}
module_init(mbcache_init)
module_exit(mbcache_exit)
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-23 00:49:09 +08:00
MODULE_AUTHOR("Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Meta block cache (for extended attributes)");
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");