Re: [PATCH 6/9] readahead: add /debug/readahead/stats

[Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:06:56PM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:29:36AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:32:41AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Wed 14-12-11 14:36:25, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > >   This looks all inherently racy (which doesn't matter much as you suggest)
> > > > > so I just wanted to suggest that if you used per-cpu counters you'd get
> > > > > race-free and faster code at the cost of larger data structures and using
> > > > > percpu_counter_add() instead of ++ (which doesn't seem like a big
> > > > > complication to me).
> > > > 
> > > > OK, here is the incremental patch to use per-cpu counters :)
> > >   Thanks! This looks better. I just thought you would use per-cpu counters
> > > as defined in include/linux/percpu_counter.h and are used e.g. by bdi
> > > stats. This is more standard for statistics in the kernel than using
> > > per-cpu variables directly.
> > 
> > Ah yes, I overlooked that facility! However the percpu_counter's
> > ability to maintain and quickly retrieve the global value seems
> > unnecessary feature/overheads for readahead stats, because here we
> > only need to sum up the global value when the user requests it. If
> > switching to percpu_counter, I'm afraid every readahead(1MB) event
> > will lead to the update of percpu_counter global value (grabbing the
> > spinlock) due to 1MB > some small batch size. This actually performs
> > worse than the plain global array of values in the v1 patch.
> 
> So use a custom batch size so that typical increments don't require
> locking for every add. The bdi stat counters are an example of this
> sort of setup to reduce lock contention on typical IO workloads as
> concurrency increases.
> 
> All these stats have is a requirement for a different batch size to
> avoid frequent lock grabs. The stats don't have to update the global
> counter very often (only to prvent overflow!) so you count get away
> with a batch size in the order of 2^30 without any issues....
> 
> We have a general per-cpu counter infrastructure - we should be
> using it and improving it and not reinventing it a different way
> every time we need a per-cpu counter.

OK, let's try using percpu_counter, with a huge batch size.

It actually adds both code size and runtime overheads slightly.
Are you sure you like this incremental patch?

Thanks,
Fengguang

---
 mm/readahead.c |   74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

--- linux-next.orig/mm/readahead.c	2011-12-23 10:04:32.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/readahead.c	2011-12-23 11:18:35.000000000 +0800
@@ -61,7 +61,18 @@ enum ra_account {
 	RA_ACCOUNT_MAX,
 };
 
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long[RA_PATTERN_ALL][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX], ra_stat);
+#define RA_STAT_BATCH	(INT_MAX / 2)
+static struct percpu_counter ra_stat[RA_PATTERN_ALL][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX];
+
+static inline void add_ra_stat(int i, int j, s64 amount)
+{
+	__percpu_counter_add(&ra_stat[i][j], amount, RA_STAT_BATCH);
+}
+
+static inline void inc_ra_stat(int i, int j)
+{
+	add_ra_stat(i, j, 1);
+}
 
 static void readahead_stats(struct address_space *mapping,
 			    pgoff_t offset,
@@ -76,62 +87,54 @@ static void readahead_stats(struct addre
 {
 	pgoff_t eof = ((i_size_read(mapping->host)-1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) + 1;
 
-	preempt_disable();
-
-	__this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_COUNT]);
-	__this_cpu_add(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_SIZE], size);
-	__this_cpu_add(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_ASYNC_SIZE], async_size);
-	__this_cpu_add(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_ACTUAL], actual);
+	inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_COUNT);
+	add_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_SIZE, size);
+	add_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_ASYNC_SIZE, async_size);
+	add_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_ACTUAL, actual);
 
 	if (start + size >= eof)
-		__this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_EOF]);
+		inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_EOF);
 	if (actual < size)
-		__this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_CACHE_HIT]);
+		inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_CACHE_HIT);
 
 	if (actual) {
-		__this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_IOCOUNT]);
+		inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_IOCOUNT);
 
 		if (start <= offset && offset < start + size)
-			__this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_SYNC]);
+			inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_SYNC);
 
 		if (for_mmap)
-			__this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_MMAP]);
+			inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_MMAP);
 		if (for_metadata)
-			__this_cpu_inc(ra_stat[pattern][RA_ACCOUNT_METADATA]);
+			inc_ra_stat(pattern, RA_ACCOUNT_METADATA);
 	}
-
-	preempt_enable();
 }
 
 static void ra_stats_clear(void)
 {
-	int cpu;
 	int i, j;
 
-	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
-		for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
-			for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++)
-				per_cpu(ra_stat[i][j], cpu) = 0;
+	for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
+		for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++)
+			percpu_counter_set(&ra_stat[i][j], 0);
 }
 
-static void ra_stats_sum(unsigned long ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_MAX][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX])
+static void ra_stats_sum(long long ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_MAX][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX])
 {
-	int cpu;
 	int i, j;
 
-	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
-		for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
-			for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++) {
-				unsigned long n = per_cpu(ra_stat[i][j], cpu);
-				ra_stats[i][j] += n;
-				ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_ALL][j] += n;
-			}
+	for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
+		for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++) {
+			s64 n = percpu_counter_sum(&ra_stat[i][j]);
+			ra_stats[i][j] += n;
+			ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_ALL][j] += n;
+		}
 }
 
 static int readahead_stats_show(struct seq_file *s, void *_)
 {
-	unsigned long i;
-	unsigned long ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_MAX][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX];
+	long long ra_stats[RA_PATTERN_MAX][RA_ACCOUNT_MAX];
+	int i;
 
 	seq_printf(s,
 		   "%-10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s %10s\n",
@@ -153,8 +156,8 @@ static int readahead_stats_show(struct s
 		if (iocount == 0)
 			iocount = 1;
 
-		seq_printf(s, "%-10s %10lu %10lu %10lu %10lu %10lu "
-			   "%10lu %10lu %10lu %10lu %10lu\n",
+		seq_printf(s, "%-10s %10lld %10lld %10lld %10lld %10lld "
+			   "%10lld %10lld %10lld %10lld %10lld\n",
 				ra_pattern_names[i].name,
 				ra_stats[i][RA_ACCOUNT_COUNT],
 				ra_stats[i][RA_ACCOUNT_EOF],
@@ -196,6 +199,7 @@ static int __init readahead_create_debug
 {
 	struct dentry *root;
 	struct dentry *entry;
+	int i, j;
 
 	root = debugfs_create_dir("readahead", NULL);
 	if (!root)
@@ -211,6 +215,10 @@ static int __init readahead_create_debug
 	if (!entry)
 		goto out;
 
+	for (i = 0; i < RA_PATTERN_ALL; i++)
+		for (j = 0; j < RA_ACCOUNT_MAX; j++)
+			percpu_counter_init(&ra_stat[i][j], 0);
+
 	return 0;
 out:
 	printk(KERN_ERR "readahead: failed to create debugfs entries\n");

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>