From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH v5 0/3] btrfs: simplify extent buffer writeback
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:52:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1745851722.git.josef@toxicpanda.com> (raw)
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1744822090.git.josef@toxicpanda.com/
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1744840038.git.josef@toxicpanda.com/
v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1744984487.git.josef@toxicpanda.com/
v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1745519463.git.josef@toxicpanda.com/
v4->v6:
- Finally was convinced that double rcu_read_lock()'ing is ok, removed all the
advanced xarray usage and replaced it with the basic helpers.
- Updated the various comments, and added one for the erase to indicate what
we're doing there since 3 of us had to read the documentation.
v3->v4:
- Adressed the various comments from Filipe.
- Added more comments to the more subtle xarray usages to help explain what's
going on.
v2->v3:
- Fixed a where I didn't use xa_unlock_irq(), per Daniel's review.
- Changed the name of the radix tree to buffer_tree, per Daniel's review.
v1->v2:
- Even though xarray underpins radix tree, it doesn't quite work the same so you
can't use the xarray functions directly, so added a patch to convert the
buffer_radix to buffer_xarray.
--- Original email ---
Hello,
We currently have two different paths for writing out extent buffers, a subpage
path and a normal path. This has resulted in subtle bugs with subpage code that
took us a while to figure out. Additionally we have this complex interaction of
get folio, find eb, see if we already started writing that eb out, write out the
eb.
We already have a radix tree for our extent buffers, so we can use that
similarly to how pagecache uses the radix tree. Tag the buffers with DIRTY when
they're dirty, and WRITEBACK when we start writing them out.
The unfortunate part is we have to re-implement folio_batch for extent buffers,
so that's where most of the new code comes from. The good part is we are now
down to a single path for writing out extent buffers, it's way simpler, and in
fact quite a bit faster now that we don't have all of these folio->eb
transitions to deal with.
I ran this through fsperf on a VM with 8 CPUs and 16gib of ram. I used
smallfiles100k, but reduced the files to 1k to make it run faster, the
results are as follows, with the statistically significant improvements
marked with *, there were no regressions. fsperf was run with -n 10 for
both runs, so the baseline is the average 10 runs and the test is the
average of 10 runs.
smallfiles100k results
metric baseline current stdev diff
================================================================================
avg_commit_ms 68.58 58.44 3.35 -14.79% *
commits 270.60 254.70 16.24 -5.88%
dev_read_iops 48 48 0 0.00%
dev_read_kbytes 1044 1044 0 0.00%
dev_write_iops 866117.90 850028.10 14292.20 -1.86%
dev_write_kbytes 10939976.40 10605701.20 351330.32 -3.06%
elapsed 49.30 33 1.64 -33.06% *
end_state_mount_ns 41251498.80 35773220.70 2531205.32 -13.28% *
end_state_umount_ns 1.90e+09 1.50e+09 14186226.85 -21.38% *
max_commit_ms 139 111.60 9.72 -19.71% *
sys_cpu 4.90 3.86 0.88 -21.29%
write_bw_bytes 42935768.20 64318451.10 1609415.05 49.80% *
write_clat_ns_mean 366431.69 243202.60 14161.98 -33.63% *
write_clat_ns_p50 49203.20 20992 264.40 -57.34% *
write_clat_ns_p99 827392 653721.60 65904.74 -20.99% *
write_io_kbytes 2035940 2035940 0 0.00%
write_iops 10482.37 15702.75 392.92 49.80% *
write_lat_ns_max 1.01e+08 90516129 3910102.06 -10.29% *
write_lat_ns_mean 366556.19 243308.48 14154.51 -33.62% *
As you can see we get about a 33% decrease runtime, with a 50%
throughput increase, which is pretty significant. Thanks,
Josef
Josef Bacik (3):
btrfs: convert the buffer_radix to an xarray
btrfs: set DIRTY and WRITEBACK tags on the buffer_tree
btrfs: use buffer xarray for extent buffer writeback operations
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 15 +-
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 576 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
fs/btrfs/extent_io.h | 2 +
fs/btrfs/fs.h | 4 +-
fs/btrfs/tests/btrfs-tests.c | 28 +-
fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 5 +-
fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 16 +-
7 files changed, 319 insertions(+), 327 deletions(-)
--
2.48.1
next reply other threads:[~2025-04-28 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-28 14:52 Josef Bacik [this message]
2025-04-28 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] btrfs: convert the buffer_radix to an xarray Josef Bacik
2025-05-07 9:31 ` Qu Wenruo
2025-04-28 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] btrfs: set DIRTY and WRITEBACK tags on the buffer_tree Josef Bacik
2025-04-28 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] btrfs: use buffer xarray for extent buffer writeback operations Josef Bacik
2025-05-26 1:17 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2025-05-26 4:20 ` Qu Wenruo
2025-05-26 6:53 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2025-05-28 23:25 ` David Sterba
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=cover.1745851722.git.josef@toxicpanda.com \
--to=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox