From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: avoid unnecessary runtime sibling pointer endian conversions
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 12:21:56 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220524022158.1849458-2-david@fromorbit.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220524022158.1849458-1-david@fromorbit.com>
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.
.... and these need to be "inline" because the compiler completely
fails to inline them automatically like it should be doing.
$ size fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.o*
text data bss dec hex filename
51874 240 0 52114 cb92 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.o.orig
51562 240 0 51802 ca5a fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.o.inline
Just when you think the tools have advanced sufficiently we don't
have to care about stuff like this anymore, along comes a reminder
that *our tools still suck*.
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 | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c
index 2aa300f7461f..786ec1cb1bba 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c
@@ -51,16 +51,31 @@ xfs_btree_magic(
return magic;
}
-static xfs_failaddr_t
+/*
+ * 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.
+ *
+ * These are explicitly marked at inline because the cost of calling them as
+ * functions instead of inlining them is about 36 bytes extra code per call site
+ * on x86-64. Yes, gcc-11 fails to inline them, and explicit inlining of these
+ * two sibling check functions reduces the compiled code size by over 300
+ * bytes.
+ */
+static inline 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) {
@@ -74,17 +89,21 @@ xfs_btree_check_lblock_siblings(
return NULL;
}
-static xfs_failaddr_t
+static inline xfs_failaddr_t
xfs_btree_check_sblock_siblings(
struct xfs_mount *mp,
struct xfs_btree_cur *cur,
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 +155,10 @@ __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 +223,10 @@ __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 +4542,10 @@ 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 +4599,10 @@ 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;
}
--
2.35.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-24 2:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-24 2:21 [PATCH 0/3] xfs: small fixes for 5.19 cycle Dave Chinner
2022-05-24 2:21 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2022-05-24 3:46 ` [PATCH 1/3] xfs: avoid unnecessary runtime sibling pointer endian conversions Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-24 8:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-24 2:21 ` [PATCH 2/3] xfs: don't assert fail on perag references on teardown Dave Chinner
2022-05-24 3:48 ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-24 4:00 ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-24 4:10 ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-24 8:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-24 2:21 ` [PATCH 3/3] xfs: assert in xfs_btree_del_cursor should take into account error Dave Chinner
2022-05-24 3:48 ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-24 8:15 ` 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=20220524022158.1849458-2-david@fromorbit.com \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@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