From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>
To: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux-foundation.org,
mpm@selenic.com, eduard.munteanu@linux360.ro
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext2/ext3: allocate ->s_blockgroup_lock separately to avoid wasting space
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:26:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081114212606.GA16005@webber.adilger.int> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811141115100.29826@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI>
On Nov 14, 2008 11:17 +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> As spotted by kmemtrace, struct ext2_sb_info is 17024 bytes and ext3_sb_info is
> 17152 bytes on 64-bit which makes them a very bad fit for SLAB allocators. In
> fact, both allocations are round up to the next available page size of
> order 3 which is 32 KB.
>
> The culprit if the wasted memory is the ->s_blockgroup_lock which can be as
> big as 16 KB when CONFIG_NR_CPUS is set to 32. As struct blockgroup_lock is a
> perfect fit for order 2 page in the worst case, allocate ->s_blockgroup_lock
> separately to avoid wasting space.
>
> The change shrinks struct ext2_sb_info to 592 bytes and struct ext3_sb_info to
> 640 bytes which fits into a 1024 byte slab cache so now we allocate 16 KB + 1
> KB instead of 32 KB saving 15 KB of memory!
>
> Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
This looks very reasonable, with some minor comments below.
Could you please also include a patch for ext4. Also, Andrew prefers that
the patches for ext2/ext3/ext4 are in separate emails.
> --- a/include/linux/blockgroup_lock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blockgroup_lock.h
> #define sb_bgl_lock(sb, block_group) \
> - (&(sb)->s_blockgroup_lock.locks[(block_group) & (NR_BG_LOCKS-1)].lock)
> + (&(sb)->s_blockgroup_lock->locks[(block_group) & (NR_BG_LOCKS-1)].lock)
How the struct is allocated seems like an implementation detail that doesn't
belong in blockgroup_lock.h at all, because "sb" is not "struct superblock"
but rather "struct ext[23]_sb_info". In fact, changing this without also
patching ext4 would cause ext4 to break.
I would suggest to change this to take the s_blockgroup_lock as a parameter,
#define bgl_lock_ptr(bgl, block_group)
(bgl->locks[(block_group) & (NR_BG_LOCKS - 1)].lock)
and then in ext[234]_fs_sb.h add a new helper in the same (first) patch:
#define sb_bgl_lock(sbi, block_group)
bgl_lock_ptr(&sbi->s_blockgroup_lock, block_group)
and remove sb_bgl_lock() from blockgroup_lock.h entirely. As part of the
later patches to change the s_blockgroup_lock allocations for each of
ext[234] this changes in ext[234]_fs_sb.h to:
#define sb_bgl_lock(sbi, block_group)
bgl_lock_ptr(sbi->s_blockgroup_lock, block_group)
This allows each of the later patches to be landed separately without
breaking the build.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-14 21:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-14 9:17 [PATCH] ext2/ext3: allocate ->s_blockgroup_lock separately to avoid wasting space Pekka J Enberg
2008-11-14 21:26 ` Andreas Dilger [this message]
2008-11-16 12:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-17 21:27 ` Pekka Enberg
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=20081114212606.GA16005@webber.adilger.int \
--to=adilger@sun.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eduard.munteanu@linux360.ro \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
/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