Re: [RFC v1 00/11] vfs: hot data tracking

Zhi Yong Wu
2012-09-18T02:24:59Z

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:18:34PM +0800, zwu.kernel@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> NOTE:
>>
>> The patchset is currently post out mainly to make sure
>> it is going in the correct direction and hope to get some
>> helpful comments from other guys.
>>
>> TODO List:
>>
>> 1.) Need to do scalability or performance tests.
>> 2.) Turn some Micro into tunables
>> TIME_TO_KICK, and HEAT_UPDATE_DELAY
>> 3.) Rafactor hot_hash_is_aging()
>> If you just made the timeout value a timespec and compared
>> the _timespecs_, you would be doing a lot fewer conversions.
>> 4.) Cleanup some unnecessary lock protect
>> 5.) Add more comments to explain how to calc temperature
>
> 0) Documentation.
>
>> Zhi Yong Wu (11):
>> vfs: introduce one structure hot_info
>> vfs: introduce one rb tree - hot_inode_tree
>> vfs: introduce 2 rb tree items - inode and range
>
> These three patches can probably just be flattened into one.
> Splitting out the first two doesn't add to the clarity of the
> series - add the structures in the patch that actually uses them
> so we don't ahve to jump between patches to see how they are used.
It make sense to me, OK, thanks.
>
>> vfs: add support for updating access frequency
>> vfs: add one new mount option '-o hottrack'
>> vfs: add init and exit support
>> vfs: introduce one hash table
>> vfs: enable hot data tracking
>> vfs: fork one private kthread to update temperature info
>> vfs: add 3 new ioctl interfaces
>> vfs: add debugfs support
>>
>> fs/Makefile | 3 +-
>> fs/compat_ioctl.c | 8 +
>> fs/dcache.c | 2 +
>> fs/direct-io.c | 10 +
>> fs/hot_debugfs.c | 487 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> fs/hot_debugfs.h | 60 +++++
>> fs/hot_hash.c | 369 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> fs/hot_hash.h | 108 ++++++++
>> fs/hot_rb.c | 648 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> fs/hot_rb.h | 70 +++++
>> fs/hot_track.c | 113 ++++++++
>> fs/hot_track.h | 23 ++
>> fs/ioctl.c | 132 +++++++++
>> fs/namespace.c | 10 +
>> fs/super.c | 11 +
>> include/linux/fs.h | 15 +
>> include/linux/hot_track.h | 169 ++++++++++++
>> mm/filemap.c | 8 +
>> mm/page-writeback.c | 21 ++
>> mm/readahead.c | 9 +
>> 20 files changed, 2275 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 fs/hot_debugfs.c
>> create mode 100644 fs/hot_debugfs.h
>> create mode 100644 fs/hot_hash.c
>> create mode 100644 fs/hot_hash.h
>> create mode 100644 fs/hot_rb.c
>> create mode 100644 fs/hot_rb.h
>> create mode 100644 fs/hot_track.c
>> create mode 100644 fs/hot_track.h
>> create mode 100644 include/linux/hot_track.h
>
> So, 9 new files for tracking all of this? I'm not sure that so
> many new files are needed - putting it all in fs/hot_tracking.[ch]
> might make more sense, or if all 8 fs/hot* files remain, putting
> them in their own subdirectory might be an idea (like quota).
If all functions are in two files, they will be large and the logic is
not so clear. so i prefer the latter. thanks.
>
> I'll comment on the code when I get a bit of time to look at it.
Great, very look forward to your more comments.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com

--
Regards,

Zhi Yong Wu