From: Li Yu <raise.sail@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: bcrl@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-aio@kvack.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: using hash table for active requests
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:57:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D0EB7F4.6070903@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49lj3qd79m.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
于 2010年12月16日 06:02, Jeff Moyer 写道:
> Li Yu <raise.sail@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This patch remove a TODO in fs/aio.c, that is to use hash table for
>> active requests.
>
> It's remained a TODO item for this long because it hasn't really
> mattered in the past. Was there other motivation for this patch besides
> the TODO comment?
>
:), indeed, to solve a TODO is my major motivation.
>> I prefer add an iocb at tail of collision chain, so I do not use hlist
>> here.
>
> Why do you prefer to add to the tail? It makes more sense to add
> collisions at the head, since if you're going to cancel everything, you
> have a better chance of cancelling stuff that was queued later than
> earlier (assuming you can cancel anything at all, which for most cases,
> you can't). Also, you're halving the number of buckets, so you should
> have a good reason.
>
I misunderstanded major feature of these code ... it just only can speed up a bit for io_cancel() syscall.
However, the "add to tail" design is wrong here, I ever thinked each hash bucket acts as a FIFO queue, so add an element to tail of list can reduce dequeue time.
> What sort of testing did you do?
>
> I've made some cursory comments below. I'll more fully review this if
> you can provide a bit more justification and some proof of testing. I'd
> be really surprised if this helped any real workloads, though.
Yes, I have some testings for this patches, it seem that its performance impact can be ignored, I tested by fio, iodepth=65535, size=1024m.
Thanks for your review time!
Yu
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
>> +static int ioctx_active_reqs_init(struct kioctx *ctx)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + ctx->active_reqs_table = kmalloc(AIO_ACTREQ_BUCKETS*sizeof(struct list_head), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Fit this into 80 columns, please. You may just want to run checkpatch
> over the whole thing.
>
>> +static inline void aio_cancel_one(struct kioctx *ctx, struct kiocb *iocb)
>
> I see no good reason to inline this.
>
>> @@ -465,10 +506,12 @@ static struct kiocb *__aio_get_req(struct kioctx *ctx)
>> /* Check if the completion queue has enough free space to
>> * accept an event from this io.
>> */
>> + bucket = hash_long((unsigned long)tohash, AIO_ACTREQ_BUCKETS_SHIFT);
>
> hash_ptr?
>
>> - struct list_head active_reqs; /* used for cancellation */
>> + struct list_head* active_reqs_table; /* used for cancellation */
>
> Coding Style
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Li Yu <raise.sail@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: bcrl@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-aio@kvack.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: using hash table for active requests
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:57:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D0EB7F4.6070903@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49lj3qd79m.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
于 2010年12月16日 06:02, Jeff Moyer 写道:
> Li Yu <raise.sail@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This patch remove a TODO in fs/aio.c, that is to use hash table for
>> active requests.
>
> It's remained a TODO item for this long because it hasn't really
> mattered in the past. Was there other motivation for this patch besides
> the TODO comment?
>
:), indeed, to solve a TODO is my major motivation.
>> I prefer add an iocb at tail of collision chain, so I do not use hlist
>> here.
>
> Why do you prefer to add to the tail? It makes more sense to add
> collisions at the head, since if you're going to cancel everything, you
> have a better chance of cancelling stuff that was queued later than
> earlier (assuming you can cancel anything at all, which for most cases,
> you can't). Also, you're halving the number of buckets, so you should
> have a good reason.
>
I misunderstanded major feature of these code ... it just only can speed up a bit for io_cancel() syscall.
However, the "add to tail" design is wrong here, I ever thinked each hash bucket acts as a FIFO queue, so add an element to tail of list can reduce dequeue time.
> What sort of testing did you do?
>
> I've made some cursory comments below. I'll more fully review this if
> you can provide a bit more justification and some proof of testing. I'd
> be really surprised if this helped any real workloads, though.
Yes, I have some testings for this patches, it seem that its performance impact can be ignored, I tested by fio, iodepth=65535, size=1024m.
Thanks for your review time!
Yu
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
>> +static int ioctx_active_reqs_init(struct kioctx *ctx)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + ctx->active_reqs_table = kmalloc(AIO_ACTREQ_BUCKETS*sizeof(struct list_head), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Fit this into 80 columns, please. You may just want to run checkpatch
> over the whole thing.
>
>> +static inline void aio_cancel_one(struct kioctx *ctx, struct kiocb *iocb)
>
> I see no good reason to inline this.
>
>> @@ -465,10 +506,12 @@ static struct kiocb *__aio_get_req(struct kioctx *ctx)
>> /* Check if the completion queue has enough free space to
>> * accept an event from this io.
>> */
>> + bucket = hash_long((unsigned long)tohash, AIO_ACTREQ_BUCKETS_SHIFT);
>
> hash_ptr?
>
>> - struct list_head active_reqs; /* used for cancellation */
>> + struct list_head* active_reqs_table; /* used for cancellation */
>
> Coding Style
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO,
see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org">aart@kvack.org</a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-20 1:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-15 3:03 [PATCH] aio: using hash table for active requests Li Yu
2010-12-15 3:03 ` Li Yu
2010-12-15 22:02 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-12-20 1:57 ` Li Yu [this message]
2010-12-20 1:57 ` Li 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=4D0EB7F4.6070903@gmail.com \
--to=raise.sail@gmail.com \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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.