* [PATCH] buffer: Avoid setting buffer bits that are already set
@ 2017-10-23 15:27 Kemi Wang
2017-10-23 16:19 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kemi Wang @ 2017-10-23 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara, Jens Axboe, Darrick J Wong, Kemi Wang, Eric Biggers,
Andreas Gruenbacher, Jeff Layton
Cc: Dave, Andi Kleen, Tim Chen, Ying Huang, Aaron Lu, Linux Kernel
It's expensive to set buffer flags that are already set, because that
causes a costly cache line transition.
A common case is setting the "verified" flag during ext4 writes.
This patch checks for the flag being set first.
With the AIM7/creat-clo benchmark testing on a 48G ramdisk based-on ext4
file system, we see 3.3%(15431->15936) improvement of aim7.jobs-per-min on
a 2-sockets broadwell platform.
What the benchmark does is: it forks 3000 processes, and each process do
the following:
a) open a new file
b) close the file
c) delete the file
until loop=100*1000 times.
The original patch is contributed by Andi Kleen.
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@intel.com>
Tested-by: Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@intel.com>
---
include/linux/buffer_head.h | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/buffer_head.h b/include/linux/buffer_head.h
index c8dae55..e1799f7 100644
--- a/include/linux/buffer_head.h
+++ b/include/linux/buffer_head.h
@@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ struct buffer_head {
#define BUFFER_FNS(bit, name) \
static __always_inline void set_buffer_##name(struct buffer_head *bh) \
{ \
- set_bit(BH_##bit, &(bh)->b_state); \
+ if (!test_bit(BH_##bit, &(bh)->b_state)) \
+ set_bit(BH_##bit, &(bh)->b_state); \
} \
static __always_inline void clear_buffer_##name(struct buffer_head *bh) \
{ \
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] buffer: Avoid setting buffer bits that are already set
2017-10-23 15:27 [PATCH] buffer: Avoid setting buffer bits that are already set Kemi Wang
@ 2017-10-23 16:19 ` Jens Axboe
2017-10-24 0:52 ` kemi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2017-10-23 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kemi Wang, Jan Kara, Darrick J Wong, Eric Biggers,
Andreas Gruenbacher, Jeff Layton
Cc: Dave, Andi Kleen, Tim Chen, Ying Huang, Aaron Lu, Linux Kernel
On 10/23/2017 10:27 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
> It's expensive to set buffer flags that are already set, because that
> causes a costly cache line transition.
>
> A common case is setting the "verified" flag during ext4 writes.
> This patch checks for the flag being set first.
>
> With the AIM7/creat-clo benchmark testing on a 48G ramdisk based-on ext4
> file system, we see 3.3%(15431->15936) improvement of aim7.jobs-per-min on
> a 2-sockets broadwell platform.
>
> What the benchmark does is: it forks 3000 processes, and each process do
> the following:
> a) open a new file
> b) close the file
> c) delete the file
> until loop=100*1000 times.
>
> The original patch is contributed by Andi Kleen.
We discussed this recently, in reference to this commit:
commit 7fcbbaf18392f0b17c95e2f033c8ccf87eecde1d
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
Date: Thu May 22 11:54:16 2014 -0700
mm/filemap.c: avoid always dirtying mapping->flags on O_DIRECT
which made a massive difference, as the changelog details.
blk-mq uses this extensively as well, where possible. The problem is
that it always has to be explained, hence the recent discussion was
around perhaps adding
set_bit_if_not_set()
clear_bit_if_set()
or similar functions, to document in a single location why this matters.
Additionally, some archs may be able to implement that in an efficient
manner.
You can add my reviewed-by to the below, I'll see if I can find some
time to implement the above in a nice way. In the mean time, you may
want to consider adding a comment to the function explaining why you
have done it that way.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] buffer: Avoid setting buffer bits that are already set
2017-10-23 16:19 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2017-10-24 0:52 ` kemi
2017-10-24 1:21 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: kemi @ 2017-10-24 0:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, Jan Kara, Darrick J Wong, Eric Biggers,
Andreas Gruenbacher, Jeff Layton
Cc: Dave, Andi Kleen, Tim Chen, Ying Huang, Aaron Lu, Linux Kernel
On 2017年10月24日 00:19, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 10:27 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
>> It's expensive to set buffer flags that are already set, because that
>> causes a costly cache line transition.
>>
>> A common case is setting the "verified" flag during ext4 writes.
>> This patch checks for the flag being set first.
>>
>> With the AIM7/creat-clo benchmark testing on a 48G ramdisk based-on ext4
>> file system, we see 3.3%(15431->15936) improvement of aim7.jobs-per-min on
>> a 2-sockets broadwell platform.
>>
>> What the benchmark does is: it forks 3000 processes, and each process do
>> the following:
>> a) open a new file
>> b) close the file
>> c) delete the file
>> until loop=100*1000 times.
>>
>> The original patch is contributed by Andi Kleen.
>
> We discussed this recently, in reference to this commit:
>
> commit 7fcbbaf18392f0b17c95e2f033c8ccf87eecde1d
> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
> Date: Thu May 22 11:54:16 2014 -0700
>
> mm/filemap.c: avoid always dirtying mapping->flags on O_DIRECT
>
> which made a massive difference, as the changelog details.
>
> blk-mq uses this extensively as well, where possible. The problem is
> that it always has to be explained, hence the recent discussion was
> around perhaps adding
>
> set_bit_if_not_set()
> clear_bit_if_set()
>
> or similar functions, to document in a single location why this matters.
> Additionally, some archs may be able to implement that in an efficient
> manner.
>
> You can add my reviewed-by to the below,
Thanks.
I'll see if I can find some
> time to implement the above in a nice way.
Agree. Maybe something like test_and_set_bit() would be more suitable.
In the mean time, you may
> want to consider adding a comment to the function explaining why you
> have done it that way.
>
Sure.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] buffer: Avoid setting buffer bits that are already set
2017-10-24 0:52 ` kemi
@ 2017-10-24 1:21 ` Andi Kleen
2017-10-24 1:25 ` kemi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2017-10-24 1:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kemi
Cc: Jens Axboe, Jan Kara, Darrick J Wong, Eric Biggers,
Andreas Gruenbacher, Jeff Layton, Dave, Andi Kleen, Tim Chen,
Ying Huang, Aaron Lu, Linux Kernel
kemi <kemi.wang@intel.com> writes:
>
> I'll see if I can find some
>> time to implement the above in a nice way.
>
> Agree. Maybe something like test_and_set_bit() would be more suitable.
test_and_set_bit is a very different operation for the CPU because
it is atomic for both. But we want the initial read to not
be atomic.
If you add special functions use a different variant that is only
atomic for the set.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] buffer: Avoid setting buffer bits that are already set
2017-10-24 1:21 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2017-10-24 1:25 ` kemi
2017-10-24 13:50 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: kemi @ 2017-10-24 1:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen
Cc: Jens Axboe, Jan Kara, Darrick J Wong, Eric Biggers,
Andreas Gruenbacher, Jeff Layton, Dave, Andi Kleen, Tim Chen,
Ying Huang, Aaron Lu, Linux Kernel
On 2017年10月24日 09:21, Andi Kleen wrote:
> kemi <kemi.wang@intel.com> writes:
>>
>> I'll see if I can find some
>>> time to implement the above in a nice way.
>>
>> Agree. Maybe something like test_and_set_bit() would be more suitable.
>
> test_and_set_bit is a very different operation for the CPU because
> it is atomic for both. But we want the initial read to not
> be atomic.
>
I meant to express the meaning of test before setting bit.
Apologize to make you confused.
> If you add special functions use a different variant that is only
> atomic for the set.
>
> -Andi
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] buffer: Avoid setting buffer bits that are already set
2017-10-24 1:25 ` kemi
@ 2017-10-24 13:50 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2017-10-24 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kemi, Andi Kleen
Cc: Jan Kara, Darrick J Wong, Eric Biggers, Andreas Gruenbacher,
Jeff Layton, Dave, Andi Kleen, Tim Chen, Ying Huang, Aaron Lu,
Linux Kernel
On 10/23/2017 07:25 PM, kemi wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年10月24日 09:21, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> kemi <kemi.wang@intel.com> writes:
>>>
>>> I'll see if I can find some
>>>> time to implement the above in a nice way.
>>>
>>> Agree. Maybe something like test_and_set_bit() would be more suitable.
>>
>> test_and_set_bit is a very different operation for the CPU because
>> it is atomic for both. But we want the initial read to not
>> be atomic.
>>
>
> I meant to express the meaning of test before setting bit.
> Apologize to make you confused.
That's why I suggested something like set_bit_if_not_set(),
test_and_set_bit() is both already used and has entirely
different semantics.
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-10-24 13:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-10-23 15:27 [PATCH] buffer: Avoid setting buffer bits that are already set Kemi Wang
2017-10-23 16:19 ` Jens Axboe
2017-10-24 0:52 ` kemi
2017-10-24 1:21 ` Andi Kleen
2017-10-24 1:25 ` kemi
2017-10-24 13:50 ` Jens Axboe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox