From: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
To: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
Cc: xfs-dev@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Review: Reduce in-core superblock lock contention near ENOSPC
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:03:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <456F1CFC.2060705@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061123044122.GU11034@melbourne.sgi.com>
Dave,
Could you have changed the SB_LOCK from a spinlock to a blocking
mutex and have achieved a similar effect?
Has this change had much testing on a large machine?
These changes wouldn't apply cleanly to tot (3 hunks failed in
xfs_mount.c) but I couldn't see why.
The changes look fine to me, couple of comments below.
Lachlan
@@ -1479,9 +1479,11 @@ xfs_mod_incore_sb_batch(xfs_mount_t *mp,
case XFS_SBS_IFREE:
case XFS_SBS_FDBLOCKS:
if (!(mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_NO_PERCPU_SB)) {
- status = xfs_icsb_modify_counters_locked(mp,
+ XFS_SB_UNLOCK(mp, s);
+ status = xfs_icsb_modify_counters(mp,
msbp->msb_field,
msbp->msb_delta, rsvd);
+ s = XFS_SB_LOCK(mp);
break;
}
/* FALLTHROUGH */
Is it safe to be releasing the SB_LOCK? Is it assumed that the
superblock wont change while we process the list of xfs_mod_sb
structures?
@@ -1515,11 +1517,12 @@ xfs_mod_incore_sb_batch(xfs_mount_t *mp,
case XFS_SBS_IFREE:
case XFS_SBS_FDBLOCKS:
if (!(mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_NO_PERCPU_SB)) {
- status =
- xfs_icsb_modify_counters_locked(mp,
+ XFS_SB_UNLOCK(mp, s);
+ status = xfs_icsb_modify_counters(mp,
msbp->msb_field,
-(msbp->msb_delta),
rsvd);
+ s = XFS_SB_LOCK(mp);
break;
}
/* FALLTHROUGH */
Same as above.
@@ -1882,6 +1895,17 @@ xfs_icsb_disable_counter(
ASSERT((field >= XFS_SBS_ICOUNT) && (field <= XFS_SBS_FDBLOCKS));
+ /*
+ * If we are already disabled, then there is nothing to do
+ * here. We check before locking all the counters to avoid
+ * the expensive lock operation when being called in the
+ * slow path and the counter is already disabled. This is
+ * safe because the only time we set or clear this state is under
+ * the m_icsb_mutex.
+ */
+ if (xfs_icsb_counter_disabled(mp, field))
+ return 0;
+
xfs_icsb_lock_all_counters(mp);
if (!test_and_set_bit(field, &mp->m_icsb_counters)) {
/* drain back to superblock */
Nice one, that will avoid a lot of unnecessary work.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-30 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-23 4:41 Review: Reduce in-core superblock lock contention near ENOSPC David Chinner
2006-11-30 18:03 ` Lachlan McIlroy [this message]
2006-11-30 22:38 ` David Chinner
2006-12-01 0:41 ` David Chinner
2006-12-01 20:12 ` Lachlan McIlroy
2006-12-01 19:22 ` Lachlan McIlroy
2006-12-03 23:49 ` David Chinner
2006-12-05 11:46 ` Klaus Strebel
2006-12-05 21:55 ` David Chinner
2006-12-06 8:43 ` Lachlan McIlroy
2006-12-08 5:16 ` David 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=456F1CFC.2060705@sgi.com \
--to=lachlan@sgi.com \
--cc=dgc@sgi.com \
--cc=xfs-dev@sgi.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