From: Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: reduce the number of pagb_lock roundtrips in xfs_alloc_clear_busy
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:56:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1303923381.2056.58.camel@doink> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110424190657.249817918@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 15:06 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Instead of finding the per-ag and then taking and releasing the pagb_lock
> for every single busy extent completed sort the list of busy extents and
> only switch betweens AGs where nessecary. This becomes especially important
> with the online discard support which will hit this lock more often.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
I said this looked good before, but since you haven't
indicated that here yet, I'll make one more comment.
Both places that call (the new) xfs_alloc_busy_clear()
precede the call with a call to xfs_alloc_busy_sort().
Considering that, and the fact that xfs_alloc_busy_clear()
depends on the list being sorted for correct (or at least
efficient) operation, I think you should just embed the
list_sort() call in xfs_alloc_busy_clear().
There would then be no real need to define the
xfs_alloc_busy_sort() helper (just call list_sort()
directly), and you can move the definition of
xfs_busy_extent_ag_cmp() up in the file and give
it private scope.
Perhaps you have other plans that make the model you
have here more appropriate though. Let me know
if you intend to re-submit, otherwise I'll just take
this version.
Either way, this looks good to me. I have been
testing with these patches. I'll wait another day
to give others a chance to review, but I'll plan
to incorporate this tomorrow.
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-27 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-24 19:06 [PATCH 0/4] improved busy extent handling V5 Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-24 19:06 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfs: optimize AGFL refills Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-29 0:41 ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-24 19:06 ` [PATCH 2/4] xfs: do not immediately reuse busy extent ranges Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-29 0:58 ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-24 19:06 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfs: exact busy extent tracking Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-29 1:10 ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-24 19:06 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfs: reduce the number of pagb_lock roundtrips in xfs_alloc_clear_busy Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-27 16:56 ` Alex Elder [this message]
2011-04-27 19:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-29 1:13 ` Dave Chinner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-04-18 6:59 [PATCH 0/4] improved busy extent handling V4 Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-18 6:59 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfs: reduce the number of pagb_lock roundtrips in xfs_alloc_clear_busy Christoph Hellwig
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=1303923381.2056.58.camel@doink \
--to=aelder@sgi.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--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