From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, jack@suse.cz,
dan.j.williams@intel.com, anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] ext4: Optimize file overwrites
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:52:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200918095210.GE18920@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <88e795d8a4d5cd22165c7ebe857ba91d68d8813e.1600401668.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri 18-09-20 10:36:35, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> In case if the file already has underlying blocks/extents allocated
> then we don't need to start a journal txn and can directly return
> the underlying mapping. Currently ext4_iomap_begin() is used by
> both DAX & DIO path. We can check if the write request is an
> overwrite & then directly return the mapping information.
>
> This could give a significant perf boost for multi-threaded writes
> specially random overwrites.
> On PPC64 VM with simulated pmem(DAX) device, ~10x perf improvement
> could be seen in random writes (overwrite). Also bcoz this optimizes
> away the spinlock contention during jbd2 slab cache allocation
> (jbd2_journal_handle). On x86 VM, ~2x perf improvement was observed.
>
> Reported-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
The patch looks good to me. You can add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Honza
> ---
> fs/ext4/inode.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index 10dd470876b3..6eae17758ece 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -3437,14 +3437,26 @@ static int ext4_iomap_begin(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t length,
> map.m_len = min_t(loff_t, (offset + length - 1) >> blkbits,
> EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK) - map.m_lblk + 1;
>
> - if (flags & IOMAP_WRITE)
> + if (flags & IOMAP_WRITE) {
> + /*
> + * We check here if the blocks are already allocated, then we
> + * don't need to start a journal txn and we can directly return
> + * the mapping information. This could boost performance
> + * especially in multi-threaded overwrite requests.
> + */
> + if (offset + length <= i_size_read(inode)) {
> + ret = ext4_map_blocks(NULL, inode, &map, 0);
> + if (ret > 0 && (map.m_flags & EXT4_MAP_MAPPED))
> + goto out;
> + }
> ret = ext4_iomap_alloc(inode, &map, flags);
> - else
> + } else {
> ret = ext4_map_blocks(NULL, inode, &map, 0);
> + }
>
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
> -
> +out:
> ext4_set_iomap(inode, iomap, &map, offset, length);
>
> return 0;
> --
> 2.26.2
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-18 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-18 5:06 [PATCHv3 0/1] Optimize ext4 file overwrites - perf improvement Ritesh Harjani
2020-09-18 5:06 ` [PATCHv3 1/1] ext4: Optimize file overwrites Ritesh Harjani
2020-09-18 7:52 ` Sedat Dilek
2020-09-18 9:52 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2020-09-25 7:12 ` [ext4] 4e8fc10115: fio.write_iops 330.6% improvement kernel test robot
2020-10-03 4:49 ` [PATCHv3 1/1] ext4: Optimize file overwrites Theodore Y. Ts'o
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=20200918095210.GE18920@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riteshh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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