public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: 0day robot <lkp@intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkp@lists.01.org, ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com,
	zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [xfs]  32678f1513:  aim7.jobs-per-min -5.6% regression
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 07:29:24 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220506212924.GJ1098723@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220506092250.GI23061@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 05:22:50PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> 
> 
> Greeting,
> 
> FYI, we noticed a -5.6% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min due to commit:
> 
> 
> commit: 32678f151338b9a321e9e27139a63c81f353acb7 ("[PATCH 1/4] xfs: detect self referencing btree sibling pointers")
> url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Dave-Chinner/xfs-fix-random-format-verification-issues/20220502-162206
> base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git for-next
> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20220502082018.1076561-2-david@fromorbit.com

Well, that answers the concern I had about the impact of 
changing the way endian conversions were done in that patch.

> a44a027a8b2a20fe 32678f151338b9a321e9e27139a 
> ---------------- --------------------------- 
>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
>              \          |                \  
>     464232            -5.6%     438315        aim7.jobs-per-min
....
>       0.13 ±  5%      +0.2        0.33 ±  6%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__xfs_btree_check_sblock
....
>       0.11 ±  4%      +0.2        0.30 ±  5%  perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__xfs_btree_check_sblock

Because there is it, right at the bottom of the profile.

Can you try the patch below and see if that fixes the issue?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com


xfs: avoid unnecessary runtime sibling pointer endian conversions

From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>

Commit dc04db2aa7c9 has caused a small aim7 regression, showing a
small increase in CPU usage in __xfs_btree_check_sblock() as a
result of the extra checking.

This is likely due to the endian conversion of the sibling poitners
being unconditional instead of relying on the compiler to endian
convert the NULL pointer at compile time and avoiding the runtime
conversion for this common case.

Rework the checks so that endian conversion of the sibling pointers
is only done if they are not null as the original code did.

Fixes: dc04db2aa7c9 ("xfs: detect self referencing btree sibling pointers")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
---
 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c
index 2aa300f7461f..4d673e943317 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c
@@ -51,16 +51,25 @@ xfs_btree_magic(
 	return magic;
 }
 
+/*
+ * These sibling pointer checks are optimised for null sibling pointers. This
+ * happens a lot, and we don't need to byte swap at runtime if the sibling
+ * pointer is NULL.
+ */
 static xfs_failaddr_t
 xfs_btree_check_lblock_siblings(
 	struct xfs_mount	*mp,
 	struct xfs_btree_cur	*cur,
 	int			level,
 	xfs_fsblock_t		fsb,
-	xfs_fsblock_t		sibling)
+	__be64			dsibling)
 {
-	if (sibling == NULLFSBLOCK)
+	xfs_fsblock_t		sibling;
+
+	if (dsibling == cpu_to_be64(NULLFSBLOCK))
 		return NULL;
+
+	sibling = be64_to_cpu(dsibling);
 	if (sibling == fsb)
 		return __this_address;
 	if (level >= 0) {
@@ -81,10 +90,14 @@ xfs_btree_check_sblock_siblings(
 	int			level,
 	xfs_agnumber_t		agno,
 	xfs_agblock_t		agbno,
-	xfs_agblock_t		sibling)
+	__be32			dsibling)
 {
-	if (sibling == NULLAGBLOCK)
+	xfs_agblock_t		sibling;
+
+	if (dsibling == cpu_to_be32(NULLAGBLOCK))
 		return NULL;
+
+	sibling = be32_to_cpu(dsibling);
 	if (sibling == agbno)
 		return __this_address;
 	if (level >= 0) {
@@ -136,10 +149,10 @@ __xfs_btree_check_lblock(
 		fsb = XFS_DADDR_TO_FSB(mp, xfs_buf_daddr(bp));
 
 	fa = xfs_btree_check_lblock_siblings(mp, cur, level, fsb,
-			be64_to_cpu(block->bb_u.l.bb_leftsib));
+			block->bb_u.l.bb_leftsib);
 	if (!fa)
 		fa = xfs_btree_check_lblock_siblings(mp, cur, level, fsb,
-				be64_to_cpu(block->bb_u.l.bb_rightsib));
+				block->bb_u.l.bb_rightsib);
 	return fa;
 }
 
@@ -204,10 +217,10 @@ __xfs_btree_check_sblock(
 	}
 
 	fa = xfs_btree_check_sblock_siblings(mp, cur, level, agno, agbno,
-			be32_to_cpu(block->bb_u.s.bb_leftsib));
+			block->bb_u.s.bb_leftsib);
 	if (!fa)
 		fa = xfs_btree_check_sblock_siblings(mp, cur, level, agno,
-				 agbno, be32_to_cpu(block->bb_u.s.bb_rightsib));
+				 agbno, block->bb_u.s.bb_rightsib);
 	return fa;
 }
 
@@ -4523,10 +4536,10 @@ xfs_btree_lblock_verify(
 	/* sibling pointer verification */
 	fsb = XFS_DADDR_TO_FSB(mp, xfs_buf_daddr(bp));
 	fa = xfs_btree_check_lblock_siblings(mp, NULL, -1, fsb,
-			be64_to_cpu(block->bb_u.l.bb_leftsib));
+			block->bb_u.l.bb_leftsib);
 	if (!fa)
 		fa = xfs_btree_check_lblock_siblings(mp, NULL, -1, fsb,
-				be64_to_cpu(block->bb_u.l.bb_rightsib));
+				block->bb_u.l.bb_rightsib);
 	return fa;
 }
 
@@ -4580,10 +4593,10 @@ xfs_btree_sblock_verify(
 	agno = xfs_daddr_to_agno(mp, xfs_buf_daddr(bp));
 	agbno = xfs_daddr_to_agbno(mp, xfs_buf_daddr(bp));
 	fa = xfs_btree_check_sblock_siblings(mp, NULL, -1, agno, agbno,
-			be32_to_cpu(block->bb_u.s.bb_leftsib));
+			block->bb_u.s.bb_leftsib);
 	if (!fa)
 		fa = xfs_btree_check_sblock_siblings(mp, NULL, -1, agno, agbno,
-				be32_to_cpu(block->bb_u.s.bb_rightsib));
+				block->bb_u.s.bb_rightsib);
 	return fa;
 }
 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-06 21:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-02  8:20 [PATCH 0/4] xfs: fix random format verification issues Dave Chinner
2022-05-02  8:20 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfs: detect self referencing btree sibling pointers Dave Chinner
2022-05-03 14:53   ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-03 21:27     ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-03 22:53   ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-03 23:13     ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-06  9:22   ` [xfs] 32678f1513: aim7.jobs-per-min -5.6% regression kernel test robot
2022-05-06 21:29     ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2022-05-07 11:09       ` [LKP] " Carel Si
2022-05-09  0:03         ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-02  8:20 ` [PATCH 2/4] xfs: validate inode fork size against fork format Dave Chinner
2022-05-03 14:55   ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-03 22:55   ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-02  8:20 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfs: set XFS_FEAT_NLINK correctly Dave Chinner
2022-05-03 14:56   ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-03 22:55   ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-02  8:20 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfs: validate v5 feature fields Dave Chinner
2022-05-02  9:44   ` kernel test robot
2022-05-02 12:37   ` kernel test robot
2022-05-03 15:00   ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-03 21:26     ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-03 22:59   ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-03 23:18     ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-03 23:28       ` Darrick J. Wong

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=20220506212924.GJ1098723@dread.disaster.area \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.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