From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] XFS: Sort delayed write buffers before dispatch
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:03:36 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1262401416-19546-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1262401416-19546-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
Currently when the xfsbufd writes delayed write buffers, it pushes
them to disk in the order they come off the delayed write list. If
there are lots of buffers ѕpread widely over the disk, this results
in overwhelming the elevator sort queues in the block layer and we
end up losing the posibility of merging adjacent buffers to minimise
the number of IOs.
Add a sort array to the buftarg so that we can do high level sorting
of the buffers once they are pulled off the delwri queue for
writeback. Currently this array can hold 4096 buffers at a time
which gives us a window 32 times larger than the default elevator
maximums for ordering buffers.
Ideally this should use a list sort rather than requiring an
external buffer to sort the buffers in, but for simplicity
just do it via sort function. Followup patches are needed to
take the list sort functions from the DRM and UBIFS code and
make it a common function and to utilise it. That will allow
sorting the entire delwri queue to be written in one go.
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h | 5 ++
2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c
index aaefc33..d53d08b 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c
@@ -1644,12 +1644,18 @@ xfs_buf_delwri_promote(
spinlock_t *dwlk = &bp->b_target->bt_delwrite_lock;
long age = xfs_buf_age_centisecs * msecs_to_jiffies(10) + 1;
- spin_lock(dwlk);
ASSERT(bp->b_flags & XBF_DELWRI);
ASSERT(bp->b_flags & _XBF_DELWRI_Q);
- list_del(&bp->b_list);
- list_add(&bp->b_list, dwq);
+
+ /*
+ * Check the buffer age before locking the delayed write queue as we
+ * don't need to promote buffers that are already past the flush age.
+ */
+ if (bp->b_queuetime < jiffies - age)
+ return;
bp->b_queuetime = jiffies - age;
+ spin_lock(dwlk);
+ list_move(&bp->b_list, dwq);
spin_unlock(dwlk);
}
@@ -1723,14 +1729,55 @@ xfs_buf_delwri_split(
}
+/*
+ * Compare function is more complex than it needs to be because
+ * the return value is only 32 bits and we are doing comparisons
+ * on 64 bit values
+ */
+int
+xfs_buf_cmp(
+ const void *a,
+ const void *b)
+{
+ const struct xfs_buf *ap = *(const struct xfs_buf**)a;
+ const struct xfs_buf *bp = *(const struct xfs_buf**)b;
+ xfs_daddr_t diff;
+
+ diff = ap->b_bn - bp->b_bn;
+ if (diff < 0)
+ return -1;
+ if (diff > 0)
+ return 1;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int
+xfs_buf_delwri_sort(
+ xfs_buftarg_t *target,
+ struct list_head *list)
+{
+ int i = 0;
+
+ while (i < XFS_BUF_SORTBUF_SIZE && !list_empty(list)) {
+ struct xfs_buf *bp = list_entry(list->next, xfs_buf_t, b_list);
+
+ ASSERT(target == bp->b_target);
+ list_del_init(&bp->b_list);
+ target->bt_sortbuf[i++] = bp;
+ }
+ sort(target->bt_sortbuf, i, sizeof(struct xfs_buf *), xfs_buf_cmp, NULL);
+
+ target->bt_sortbuf_num = i;
+ if (!list_empty(list))
+ return 1;
+ return 0;
+}
+
STATIC int
xfsbufd(
void *data)
{
- struct list_head tmp;
xfs_buftarg_t *target = (xfs_buftarg_t *)data;
- int count;
- xfs_buf_t *bp;
current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
@@ -1739,6 +1786,9 @@ xfsbufd(
do {
long age = xfs_buf_age_centisecs * msecs_to_jiffies(10);
long tout = age;
+ int count = 0;
+ int more = 0;
+ struct list_head tmp;
if (unlikely(freezing(current))) {
set_bit(XBT_FORCE_SLEEP, &target->bt_flags);
@@ -1753,15 +1803,14 @@ xfsbufd(
schedule_timeout_interruptible(tout);
xfs_buf_delwri_split(target, &tmp, age);
- count = 0;
- while (!list_empty(&tmp)) {
- bp = list_entry(tmp.next, xfs_buf_t, b_list);
- ASSERT(target == bp->b_target);
-
- list_del_init(&bp->b_list);
- xfs_buf_iostrategy(bp);
- count++;
- }
+ do {
+ int i;
+ more = xfs_buf_delwri_sort(target, &tmp);
+ for (i = 0; i < target->bt_sortbuf_num; i++) {
+ xfs_buf_iostrategy(target->bt_sortbuf[i]);
+ count++;
+ }
+ } while (more);
if (as_list_len > 0)
purge_addresses();
@@ -1783,38 +1832,44 @@ xfs_flush_buftarg(
xfs_buftarg_t *target,
int wait)
{
- struct list_head tmp;
- xfs_buf_t *bp, *n;
+ xfs_buf_t *bp;
int pincount = 0;
+ int more = 0;
+ LIST_HEAD(tmp_list);
+ LIST_HEAD(wait_list);
xfs_buf_runall_queues(xfsconvertd_workqueue);
xfs_buf_runall_queues(xfsdatad_workqueue);
xfs_buf_runall_queues(xfslogd_workqueue);
set_bit(XBT_FORCE_FLUSH, &target->bt_flags);
- pincount = xfs_buf_delwri_split(target, &tmp, 0);
+ pincount = xfs_buf_delwri_split(target, &tmp_list, 0);
/*
- * Dropped the delayed write list lock, now walk the temporary list
+ * Dropped the delayed write list lock, now walk the temporary list.
+ * All I/O is issued async and then if we need to wait for completion
+ * we do that after issuing all the IO.
*/
- list_for_each_entry_safe(bp, n, &tmp, b_list) {
- ASSERT(target == bp->b_target);
- if (wait)
- bp->b_flags &= ~XBF_ASYNC;
- else
- list_del_init(&bp->b_list);
-
- xfs_buf_iostrategy(bp);
- }
+ do {
+ int i;
+ more = xfs_buf_delwri_sort(target, &tmp_list);
+ for (i = 0; i < target->bt_sortbuf_num; i++) {
+ bp = target->bt_sortbuf[i];
+ ASSERT(target == bp->b_target);
+ if (wait) {
+ bp->b_flags &= ~XBF_ASYNC;
+ list_add(&bp->b_list, &wait_list);
+ }
+ xfs_buf_iostrategy(bp);
+ }
+ } while (more);
if (wait)
blk_run_address_space(target->bt_mapping);
- /*
- * Remaining list items must be flushed before returning
- */
- while (!list_empty(&tmp)) {
- bp = list_entry(tmp.next, xfs_buf_t, b_list);
+ /* Now wait for IO to complete if required. */
+ while (!list_empty(&wait_list)) {
+ bp = list_entry(wait_list.next, xfs_buf_t, b_list);
list_del_init(&bp->b_list);
xfs_iowait(bp);
diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h
index a7c6895..599708e 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h
@@ -128,6 +128,8 @@ typedef struct xfs_bufhash {
spinlock_t bh_lock;
} xfs_bufhash_t;
+#define XFS_BUF_SORTBUF_SIZE 4096
+
typedef struct xfs_buftarg {
dev_t bt_dev;
struct block_device *bt_bdev;
@@ -147,6 +149,9 @@ typedef struct xfs_buftarg {
struct list_head bt_delwrite_queue;
spinlock_t bt_delwrite_lock;
unsigned long bt_flags;
+ int bt_sortbuf_num;
+ struct xfs_buf * bt_sortbuf[XFS_BUF_SORTBUF_SIZE];
+
} xfs_buftarg_t;
/*
--
1.6.5
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-02 3:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-02 3:03 [RFC, PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback Dave Chinner
2010-01-02 3:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] XFS: Use delayed write for inodes rather than async Dave Chinner
2010-01-02 3:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] XFS: Don't issue buffer IO direct from AIL push Dave Chinner
2010-01-02 3:03 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-01-02 13:08 ` [PATCH 3/3] XFS: Sort delayed write buffers before dispatch Andi Kleen
2010-01-02 14:14 ` Dave Chinner
2010-01-04 15:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-04 23:53 ` Dave Chinner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-01-05 0:04 [PATCH 0/3] Kill async inode writeback V2 Dave Chinner
2010-01-05 0:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] xfs: Sort delayed write buffers before dispatch Dave Chinner
2010-01-08 11:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 11:17 ` Dave Chinner
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=1262401416-19546-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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