From: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@samsung.com>
To: '이창만' <cm224.lee@samsung.com>, jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, '谭姝' <shu.tan@samsung.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2] f2fs: check all ones or zeros bitmap with bitops for better mount performance
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:07:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000201ced3ac$799274c0$6cb75e40$@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <003501ced384$31fb7530$95f25f90$@samsung.com>
Hi Lee,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 이창만 [mailto:cm224.lee@samsung.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 10:20 AM
> To: 'Chao Yu'; jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; '谭姝'; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2] f2fs: check all ones or zeros bitmap with
> bitops for better mount performance
>
> To check whether bitmap are all zeros or all ones, I think memcmp is more
> neat.
> But I don't know exactly performance gap between memcmp and
> find_next_bit.
With the result of my test, find_next_bit takes less time than memcmp.
If we could use {test, set, clear}_bit_le intead of f2fs_{test, set, clear}_bit, the following patch
could be used for better performance.
This one is better than the V2 patch for performance with mixed bitmap in my test.
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
index 7f94d78..32153eb
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
@@ -544,7 +544,8 @@ static inline void check_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
struct f2fs_sm_info *sm_info = SM_I(sbi);
unsigned int end_segno = sm_info->segment_count - 1;
int valid_blocks = 0;
- int i;
+ int i, cur_pos = 0, next_pos;
+ bool is_valid;
/* check segment usage */
BUG_ON(GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) > sbi->blocks_per_seg);
@@ -553,9 +554,21 @@ static inline void check_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
BUG_ON(segno > end_segno);
/* check bitmap with valid block count */
- for (i = 0; i < sbi->blocks_per_seg; i++)
- if (f2fs_test_bit(i, raw_sit->valid_map))
- valid_blocks++;
+ cur_pos = 0;
+ is_valid = test_bit_le(0, raw_sit->valid_map) ? true : false;
+ do {
+ if (is_valid) {
+ next_pos = find_next_zero_bit_le(&raw_sit->valid_map,
+ sbi->blocks_per_seg,
+ cur_pos);
+ valid_blocks += next_pos - cur_pos;
+ } else
+ next_pos = find_next_bit_le(&raw_sit->valid_map,
+ sbi->blocks_per_seg,
+ cur_pos);
+ cur_pos = next_pos;
+ is_valid = !is_valid;
+ } while (cur_pos < sbi->blocks_per_seg);
BUG_ON(GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) != valid_blocks);
}
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chao Yu [mailto:chao2.yu@samsung.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:21 PM
> To: jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; '谭姝'; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2] f2fs: check all ones or zeros bitmap with bitops
> for better mount performance
>
> Previously, check_block_count check valid_map with bit data type in common
> scenario that sit has all ones or zeros bitmap, it makes low mount
> performance.
> So let's check the special bitmap with integer data type instead of the bit one.
>
> v2:
> use find_next_bit_le/find_next_zero_bit_le for better performance and
> readable as Jaegeuk suggested.
>
> Suggested-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tan Shu <shu.tan@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Chao <chao2.yu@samsung.com>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/segment.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h index 7f94d78..d25b6af
> 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> @@ -552,6 +552,23 @@ static inline void check_block_count(struct
> f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> /* check boundary of a given segment number */
> BUG_ON(segno > end_segno);
>
> + /* check all ones or zeros valid_map */
> + if (GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) == 0) {
> + int pos = find_next_bit_le(&raw_sit->valid_map,
> + sbi->blocks_per_seg,
> + 0);
> + if (pos != sbi->blocks_per_seg)
> + BUG();
> + return;
> + } else if (GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) == sbi->blocks_per_seg) {
> + int pos = find_next_zero_bit_le(&raw_sit->valid_map,
> + sbi->blocks_per_seg,
> + 0);
> + if (pos != sbi->blocks_per_seg)
> + BUG();
> + return;
> + }
> +
> /* check bitmap with valid block count */
> for (i = 0; i < sbi->blocks_per_seg; i++)
> if (f2fs_test_bit(i, raw_sit->valid_map))
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktr
> k
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@samsung.com>
To: '이창만' <cm224.lee@samsung.com>, jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, '谭姝' <shu.tan@samsung.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2] f2fs: check all ones or zeros bitmap with bitops for better mount performance
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:07:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000201ced3ac$799274c0$6cb75e40$@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <003501ced384$31fb7530$95f25f90$@samsung.com>
Hi Lee,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 이창만 [mailto:cm224.lee@samsung.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 10:20 AM
> To: 'Chao Yu'; jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; '谭姝'; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2] f2fs: check all ones or zeros bitmap with
> bitops for better mount performance
>
> To check whether bitmap are all zeros or all ones, I think memcmp is more
> neat.
> But I don't know exactly performance gap between memcmp and
> find_next_bit.
With the result of my test, find_next_bit takes less time than memcmp.
If we could use {test, set, clear}_bit_le intead of f2fs_{test, set, clear}_bit, the following patch
could be used for better performance.
This one is better than the V2 patch for performance with mixed bitmap in my test.
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
index 7f94d78..32153eb
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
@@ -544,7 +544,8 @@ static inline void check_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
struct f2fs_sm_info *sm_info = SM_I(sbi);
unsigned int end_segno = sm_info->segment_count - 1;
int valid_blocks = 0;
- int i;
+ int i, cur_pos = 0, next_pos;
+ bool is_valid;
/* check segment usage */
BUG_ON(GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) > sbi->blocks_per_seg);
@@ -553,9 +554,21 @@ static inline void check_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
BUG_ON(segno > end_segno);
/* check bitmap with valid block count */
- for (i = 0; i < sbi->blocks_per_seg; i++)
- if (f2fs_test_bit(i, raw_sit->valid_map))
- valid_blocks++;
+ cur_pos = 0;
+ is_valid = test_bit_le(0, raw_sit->valid_map) ? true : false;
+ do {
+ if (is_valid) {
+ next_pos = find_next_zero_bit_le(&raw_sit->valid_map,
+ sbi->blocks_per_seg,
+ cur_pos);
+ valid_blocks += next_pos - cur_pos;
+ } else
+ next_pos = find_next_bit_le(&raw_sit->valid_map,
+ sbi->blocks_per_seg,
+ cur_pos);
+ cur_pos = next_pos;
+ is_valid = !is_valid;
+ } while (cur_pos < sbi->blocks_per_seg);
BUG_ON(GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) != valid_blocks);
}
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chao Yu [mailto:chao2.yu@samsung.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:21 PM
> To: jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; '谭姝'; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2] f2fs: check all ones or zeros bitmap with bitops
> for better mount performance
>
> Previously, check_block_count check valid_map with bit data type in common
> scenario that sit has all ones or zeros bitmap, it makes low mount
> performance.
> So let's check the special bitmap with integer data type instead of the bit one.
>
> v2:
> use find_next_bit_le/find_next_zero_bit_le for better performance and
> readable as Jaegeuk suggested.
>
> Suggested-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tan Shu <shu.tan@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Chao <chao2.yu@samsung.com>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/segment.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h index 7f94d78..d25b6af
> 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> @@ -552,6 +552,23 @@ static inline void check_block_count(struct
> f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> /* check boundary of a given segment number */
> BUG_ON(segno > end_segno);
>
> + /* check all ones or zeros valid_map */
> + if (GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) == 0) {
> + int pos = find_next_bit_le(&raw_sit->valid_map,
> + sbi->blocks_per_seg,
> + 0);
> + if (pos != sbi->blocks_per_seg)
> + BUG();
> + return;
> + } else if (GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) == sbi->blocks_per_seg) {
> + int pos = find_next_zero_bit_le(&raw_sit->valid_map,
> + sbi->blocks_per_seg,
> + 0);
> + if (pos != sbi->blocks_per_seg)
> + BUG();
> + return;
> + }
> +
> /* check bitmap with valid block count */
> for (i = 0; i < sbi->blocks_per_seg; i++)
> if (f2fs_test_bit(i, raw_sit->valid_map))
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktr
> k
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-28 7:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-24 8:21 [PATCH V2] f2fs: check all ones or zeros bitmap with bitops for better mount performance Chao Yu
2013-10-24 8:21 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2013-10-24 10:03 ` Gu Zheng
2013-10-25 1:34 ` Chao Yu
2013-10-25 1:34 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2013-10-28 2:19 ` 이창만
2013-10-28 2:19 ` [f2fs-dev] " 이창만
2013-10-28 2:30 ` Gu Zheng
2013-10-28 2:30 ` [f2fs-dev] " Gu Zheng
2013-10-28 7:07 ` Chao Yu [this message]
2013-10-28 7:07 ` Chao Yu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='000201ced3ac$799274c0$6cb75e40$@samsung.com' \
--to=chao2.yu@samsung.com \
--cc=cm224.lee@samsung.com \
--cc=jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shu.tan@samsung.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.