From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [patch] optimise loop driver a bit
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:58:42 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <426C6AF2.9090406@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 77 bytes --]
Paul McKenney would be proud ;)
Any good, Jens?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
[-- Attachment #2: loop-opt.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 5949 bytes --]
With the previous bug, I initially started looking in the loop driver
for the problem.
Looks like locking can be optimised quite a lot. Increase lock widths
slightly so lo_lock is taken fewer times per request. Also it was quite
trivial to cover lo_pending with that lock, and remove the atomic requirement.
This also makes memory ordering explicitly correct, which is nice (not that
I particularly saw any mem ordering bugs).
Test was reading 4 250MB files in parallel on ext2-on-tmpfs filesystem
(1K block size, 4K page size). System is 2 socket Xeon with HT (4 thread).
intel:/home/npiggin# umount /dev/loop0 ; mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/loop ; /usr/bin/time ./mtloop.sh
Before:
0.24user 5.51system 0:02.84elapsed 202%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0.19user 5.52system 0:02.88elapsed 198%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0.19user 5.57system 0:02.89elapsed 198%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0.22user 5.51system 0:02.90elapsed 197%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0.19user 5.44system 0:02.91elapsed 193%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
After:
0.07user 2.34system 0:01.68elapsed 143%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0.06user 2.37system 0:01.68elapsed 144%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0.06user 2.39system 0:01.68elapsed 145%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0.06user 2.36system 0:01.68elapsed 144%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0.06user 2.42system 0:01.68elapsed 147%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/block/loop.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/block/loop.c 2005-04-25 13:15:28.000000000 +1000
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/block/loop.c 2005-04-25 13:37:45.000000000 +1000
@@ -472,17 +472,11 @@ static int do_bio_filebacked(struct loop
*/
static void loop_add_bio(struct loop_device *lo, struct bio *bio)
{
- unsigned long flags;
-
- spin_lock_irqsave(&lo->lo_lock, flags);
if (lo->lo_biotail) {
lo->lo_biotail->bi_next = bio;
lo->lo_biotail = bio;
} else
lo->lo_bio = lo->lo_biotail = bio;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lo->lo_lock, flags);
-
- up(&lo->lo_bh_mutex);
}
/*
@@ -492,14 +486,12 @@ static struct bio *loop_get_bio(struct l
{
struct bio *bio;
- spin_lock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
if ((bio = lo->lo_bio)) {
if (bio == lo->lo_biotail)
lo->lo_biotail = NULL;
lo->lo_bio = bio->bi_next;
bio->bi_next = NULL;
}
- spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
return bio;
}
@@ -509,35 +501,28 @@ static int loop_make_request(request_que
struct loop_device *lo = q->queuedata;
int rw = bio_rw(old_bio);
- if (!lo)
- goto out;
+ if (rw == READA)
+ rw = READ;
+
+ BUG_ON(!lo || (rw != READ && rw != WRITE));
spin_lock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
- goto inactive;
- atomic_inc(&lo->lo_pending);
- spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
-
- if (rw == WRITE) {
- if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_READ_ONLY)
- goto err;
- } else if (rw == READA) {
- rw = READ;
- } else if (rw != READ) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "loop: unknown command (%x)\n", rw);
- goto err;
- }
+ goto out;
+ if (unlikely(rw == WRITE && (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_READ_ONLY)))
+ goto out;
+ lo->lo_pending++;
loop_add_bio(lo, old_bio);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
+ up(&lo->lo_bh_mutex);
return 0;
-err:
- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&lo->lo_pending))
- up(&lo->lo_bh_mutex);
+
out:
+ if (lo->lo_pending == 0)
+ up(&lo->lo_bh_mutex);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
bio_io_error(old_bio, old_bio->bi_size);
return 0;
-inactive:
- spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
- goto out;
}
/*
@@ -560,13 +545,11 @@ static void do_loop_switch(struct loop_d
static inline void loop_handle_bio(struct loop_device *lo, struct bio *bio)
{
- int ret;
-
if (unlikely(!bio->bi_bdev)) {
do_loop_switch(lo, bio->bi_private);
bio_put(bio);
} else {
- ret = do_bio_filebacked(lo, bio);
+ int ret = do_bio_filebacked(lo, bio);
bio_endio(bio, bio->bi_size, ret);
}
}
@@ -594,7 +577,7 @@ static int loop_thread(void *data)
set_user_nice(current, -20);
lo->lo_state = Lo_bound;
- atomic_inc(&lo->lo_pending);
+ lo->lo_pending = 1;
/*
* up sem, we are running
@@ -602,26 +585,38 @@ static int loop_thread(void *data)
up(&lo->lo_sem);
for (;;) {
- down_interruptible(&lo->lo_bh_mutex);
+ int pending;
+
/*
- * could be upped because of tear-down, not because of
- * pending work
+ * interruptible just to not contribute to load avg
*/
- if (!atomic_read(&lo->lo_pending))
+ if (down_interruptible(&lo->lo_bh_mutex))
+ continue;
+
+ spin_lock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
+ pending = lo->lo_pending;
+
+ /*
+ * could be upped because of tear-down, not pending work
+ */
+ if (unlikely(!pending)) {
+ spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
break;
+ }
bio = loop_get_bio(lo);
- if (!bio) {
- printk("loop: missing bio\n");
- continue;
- }
+ pending--;
+ lo->lo_pending = pending;
+ spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
+
+ BUG_ON(!bio);
loop_handle_bio(lo, bio);
/*
* upped both for pending work and tear-down, lo_pending
* will hit zero then
*/
- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&lo->lo_pending))
+ if (unlikely(!pending))
break;
}
@@ -900,7 +895,8 @@ static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_devic
spin_lock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
lo->lo_state = Lo_rundown;
- if (atomic_dec_and_test(&lo->lo_pending))
+ lo->lo_pending--;
+ if (!lo->lo_pending)
up(&lo->lo_bh_mutex);
spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/loop.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/loop.h 2005-04-25 13:15:28.000000000 +1000
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/loop.h 2005-04-25 13:37:45.000000000 +1000
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ struct loop_device {
struct semaphore lo_sem;
struct semaphore lo_ctl_mutex;
struct semaphore lo_bh_mutex;
- atomic_t lo_pending;
+ int lo_pending;
request_queue_t *lo_queue;
};
next reply other threads:[~2005-04-25 3:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-25 3:58 Nick Piggin [this message]
2005-04-26 12:04 ` [patch] optimise loop driver a bit Andrew Morton
2005-04-26 12:12 ` Nick Piggin
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=426C6AF2.9090406@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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.