From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libxfs: contiguous buffers are not discontigous
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:06:02 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5306521A.8010207@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392875722-4390-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
On 2/19/14, 11:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
>
> When discontiguous directory buffer support was fixed in xfs_repair,
> (dd9093d xfs_repair: fix discontiguous directory block support)
> it changed to using libxfs_getbuf_map() to support mapping
> discontiguous blocks, and the prefetch code special cased such
> discontiguous buffers.
>
> The issue is that libxfs_getbuf_map() marks all buffers, even
> contiguous ones - as LIBXFS_B_DISCONTIG, and so the prefetch code
> was treating every buffer as discontiguous. This causes the prefetch
> code to completely bypass the large IO optimisations for dense areas
> of metadata. Because there was no obvious change in performance or
> IO patterns, this wasn't noticed during performance testing.
>
> However, this change mysteriously fixed a regression in xfs/033 in
> the v3.2.0-alpha release, and this change in behaviour was
> discovered as part of triaging why it "fixed" the regression.
> Anyway, restoring the large IO prefetch optimisation results
> a reapiron a 10 million inode filesystem dropping from 197s to 173s,
> and the peak IOPS rate in phase 3 dropping from 25,000 to roughly
> 2,000 by trading off a bandwidth increase of roughly 100% (i.e.
> 200MB/s to 400MB/s). Phase 4 saw similar changes in IO profile and
> speed increases.
>
> This, however, re-introduces the regression in xfs/033, which will
> now be fixed in a separate patch.
Thanks for finding this. I was getting close. ;)
It seems fine, although a little unexpected; why do we ever
create a map of 1? It feels a little odd to call getbuf_map
with only 1 item, and then short-circuit it. Should this
be something more obvious in the callers?
Wel, I guess it's pretty much consistent w/ the same behavior
in libxfs_readbuf_map()... *shrug*
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> Reported-by: Eric Sandeen <esandeen@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> ---
> libxfs/rdwr.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/libxfs/rdwr.c b/libxfs/rdwr.c
> index ac7739f..78a9b37 100644
> --- a/libxfs/rdwr.c
> +++ b/libxfs/rdwr.c
> @@ -590,6 +590,10 @@ libxfs_getbuf_map(struct xfs_buftarg *btp, struct xfs_buf_map *map,
> struct xfs_bufkey key = {0};
> int i;
>
> + if (nmaps == 1)
> + return libxfs_getbuf_flags(btp, map[0].bm_bn, map[0].bm_len,
> + flags);
> +
> key.buftarg = btp;
> key.blkno = map[0].bm_bn;
> for (i = 0; i < nmaps; i++) {
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-20 19:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-20 5:55 [PATCH 0/2] xfs_repair: fix xfs/033 issues Dave Chinner
2014-02-20 5:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] libxfs: contiguous buffers are not discontigous Dave Chinner
2014-02-20 15:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-02-20 19:06 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2014-02-20 21:39 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-20 5:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] libxfs: clear stale buffer errors on write Dave Chinner
2014-02-20 15:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-02-20 19:09 ` Eric Sandeen
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=5306521A.8010207@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=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