kernel/linux
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ synced 2026-09-26 18:16:26 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Packages Activity
linux/fs/mbcache.c

435 lines
12 KiB
Raw Permalink Normal View History

mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
ext4: xattr inode deduplication Ext4 now supports xattr values that are up to 64k in size (vfs limit). Large xattr values are stored in external inodes each one holding a single value. Once written the data blocks of these inodes are immutable. The real world use cases are expected to have a lot of value duplication such as inherited acls etc. To reduce data duplication on disk, this patch implements a deduplicator that allows sharing of xattr inodes. The deduplication is based on an in-memory hash lookup that is a best effort sharing scheme. When a xattr inode is read from disk (i.e. getxattr() call), its crc32c hash is added to a hash table. Before creating a new xattr inode for a value being set, the hash table is checked to see if an existing inode holds an identical value. If such an inode is found, the ref count on that inode is incremented. On value removal the ref count is decremented and if it reaches zero the inode is deleted. The quota charging for such inodes is manually managed. Every reference holder is charged the full size as if there was no sharing happening. This is consistent with how xattr blocks are also charged. [ Fixed up journal credits calculation to handle inline data and the rare case where an shared xattr block can get freed when two thread race on breaking the xattr block sharing. --tytso ] Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 11:44:55 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache: use consistent type for entry count mbcache used several different types to represent the number of entries in the cache. For consistency within mbcache and with the shrinker API, always use unsigned long. This does not change behavior for current mbcache users (ext2 and ext4) since they limit the entry count to a value which easily fits in an int. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:43:48 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache: use consistent type for entry count mbcache used several different types to represent the number of entries in the cache. For consistency within mbcache and with the shrinker API, always use unsigned long. This does not change behavior for current mbcache users (ext2 and ext4) since they limit the entry count to a value which easily fits in an int. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:43:48 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache: get rid of _e_hash_list_head Get rid of field _e_hash_list_head in cache entries and add bit field e_referenced instead. Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:42:05 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache: get rid of _e_hash_list_head Get rid of field _e_hash_list_head in cache entries and add bit field e_referenced instead. Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:42:05 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries To reduce amount of damage caused by single bad block, we limit number of inodes sharing an xattr block to 1024. Thus there can be more xattr blocks with the same contents when there are lots of files with the same extended attributes. These xattr blocks naturally result in hash collisions and can form long hash chains and we unnecessarily check each such block only to find out we cannot use it because it is already shared by too many inodes. Add a reusable flag to cache entries which is cleared when a cache entry has reached its maximum refcount. Cache entries which are not marked reusable are skipped by mb_cache_entry_find_{first,next}. This significantly speeds up mbcache when there are many same xattr blocks. For example for xattr-bench with 5 values and each process handling 20000 files, the run for 64 processes is 25x faster with this patch. Even for 8 processes the speedup is almost 3x. We have also verified that for situations where there is only one xattr block of each kind, the patch doesn't have a measurable cost. [JK: Remove handling of setting the same value since it is not needed anymore, check for races in e_reusable setting, improve changelog, add measurements] Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:44:04 -05:00
mbcache: initialize entry->e_referenced in mb_cache_entry_create() KMSAN reported use of uninitialized |entry->e_referenced| in a condition in mb_cache_shrink(): ================================================================== BUG: KMSAN: use of uninitialized memory in mb_cache_shrink+0x3b4/0xc50 fs/mbcache.c:287 CPU: 2 PID: 816 Comm: kswapd1 Not tainted 4.11.0-rc5+ #2877 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:16 [inline] dump_stack+0x172/0x1c0 lib/dump_stack.c:52 kmsan_report+0x12a/0x180 mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:927 __msan_warning_32+0x61/0xb0 mm/kmsan/kmsan_instr.c:469 mb_cache_shrink+0x3b4/0xc50 fs/mbcache.c:287 mb_cache_scan+0x67/0x80 fs/mbcache.c:321 do_shrink_slab mm/vmscan.c:397 [inline] shrink_slab+0xc3d/0x12d0 mm/vmscan.c:500 shrink_node+0x208f/0x2fd0 mm/vmscan.c:2603 kswapd_shrink_node mm/vmscan.c:3172 [inline] balance_pgdat mm/vmscan.c:3289 [inline] kswapd+0x160f/0x2850 mm/vmscan.c:3478 kthread+0x46c/0x5f0 kernel/kthread.c:230 ret_from_fork+0x29/0x40 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:430 chained origin: save_stack_trace+0x37/0x40 arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c:59 kmsan_save_stack_with_flags mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:302 [inline] kmsan_save_stack mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:317 [inline] kmsan_internal_chain_origin+0x12a/0x1f0 mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:547 __msan_store_shadow_origin_1+0xac/0x110 mm/kmsan/kmsan_instr.c:257 mb_cache_entry_create+0x3b3/0xc60 fs/mbcache.c:95 ext4_xattr_cache_insert fs/ext4/xattr.c:1647 [inline] ext4_xattr_block_set+0x4c82/0x5530 fs/ext4/xattr.c:1022 ext4_xattr_set_handle+0x1332/0x20a0 fs/ext4/xattr.c:1252 ext4_xattr_set+0x4d2/0x680 fs/ext4/xattr.c:1306 ext4_xattr_trusted_set+0x8d/0xa0 fs/ext4/xattr_trusted.c:36 __vfs_setxattr+0x703/0x790 fs/xattr.c:149 __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x27a/0x6f0 fs/xattr.c:180 vfs_setxattr fs/xattr.c:223 [inline] setxattr+0x6ae/0x790 fs/xattr.c:449 path_setxattr+0x1eb/0x380 fs/xattr.c:468 SYSC_lsetxattr+0x8d/0xb0 fs/xattr.c:490 SyS_lsetxattr+0x77/0xa0 fs/xattr.c:486 entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x13/0x94 origin: save_stack_trace+0x37/0x40 arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c:59 kmsan_save_stack_with_flags mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:302 [inline] kmsan_internal_poison_shadow+0xb1/0x1a0 mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:198 kmsan_kmalloc+0x7f/0xe0 mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:337 kmem_cache_alloc+0x1c2/0x1e0 mm/slub.c:2766 mb_cache_entry_create+0x283/0xc60 fs/mbcache.c:86 ext4_xattr_cache_insert fs/ext4/xattr.c:1647 [inline] ext4_xattr_block_set+0x4c82/0x5530 fs/ext4/xattr.c:1022 ext4_xattr_set_handle+0x1332/0x20a0 fs/ext4/xattr.c:1252 ext4_xattr_set+0x4d2/0x680 fs/ext4/xattr.c:1306 ext4_xattr_trusted_set+0x8d/0xa0 fs/ext4/xattr_trusted.c:36 __vfs_setxattr+0x703/0x790 fs/xattr.c:149 __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x27a/0x6f0 fs/xattr.c:180 vfs_setxattr fs/xattr.c:223 [inline] setxattr+0x6ae/0x790 fs/xattr.c:449 path_setxattr+0x1eb/0x380 fs/xattr.c:468 SYSC_lsetxattr+0x8d/0xb0 fs/xattr.c:490 SyS_lsetxattr+0x77/0xa0 fs/xattr.c:486 entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x13/0x94 ================================================================== Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.6
2018-01-07 16:22:35 -05:00
mbcache: get rid of _e_hash_list_head Get rid of field _e_hash_list_head in cache entries and add bit field e_referenced instead. Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:42:05 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: get rid of _e_hash_list_head Get rid of field _e_hash_list_head in cache entries and add bit field e_referenced instead. Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:42:05 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries To reduce amount of damage caused by single bad block, we limit number of inodes sharing an xattr block to 1024. Thus there can be more xattr blocks with the same contents when there are lots of files with the same extended attributes. These xattr blocks naturally result in hash collisions and can form long hash chains and we unnecessarily check each such block only to find out we cannot use it because it is already shared by too many inodes. Add a reusable flag to cache entries which is cleared when a cache entry has reached its maximum refcount. Cache entries which are not marked reusable are skipped by mb_cache_entry_find_{first,next}. This significantly speeds up mbcache when there are many same xattr blocks. For example for xattr-bench with 5 values and each process handling 20000 files, the run for 64 processes is 25x faster with this patch. Even for 8 processes the speedup is almost 3x. We have also verified that for situations where there is only one xattr block of each kind, the patch doesn't have a measurable cost. [JK: Remove handling of setting the same value since it is not needed anymore, check for races in e_reusable setting, improve changelog, add measurements] Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:44:04 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: document that "find" functions only return reusable entries mb_cache_entry_find_first() and mb_cache_entry_find_next() only return cache entries with the 'e_reusable' bit set. This should be documented. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:55:01 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: document that "find" functions only return reusable entries mb_cache_entry_find_first() and mb_cache_entry_find_next() only return cache entries with the 'e_reusable' bit set. This should be documented. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:55:01 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: document that "find" functions only return reusable entries mb_cache_entry_find_first() and mb_cache_entry_find_next() only return cache entries with the 'e_reusable' bit set. This should be documented. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:55:01 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: document that "find" functions only return reusable entries mb_cache_entry_find_first() and mb_cache_entry_find_next() only return cache entries with the 'e_reusable' bit set. This should be documented. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:55:01 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries To reduce amount of damage caused by single bad block, we limit number of inodes sharing an xattr block to 1024. Thus there can be more xattr blocks with the same contents when there are lots of files with the same extended attributes. These xattr blocks naturally result in hash collisions and can form long hash chains and we unnecessarily check each such block only to find out we cannot use it because it is already shared by too many inodes. Add a reusable flag to cache entries which is cleared when a cache entry has reached its maximum refcount. Cache entries which are not marked reusable are skipped by mb_cache_entry_find_{first,next}. This significantly speeds up mbcache when there are many same xattr blocks. For example for xattr-bench with 5 values and each process handling 20000 files, the run for 64 processes is 25x faster with this patch. Even for 8 processes the speedup is almost 3x. We have also verified that for situations where there is only one xattr block of each kind, the patch doesn't have a measurable cost. [JK: Remove handling of setting the same value since it is not needed anymore, check for races in e_reusable setting, improve changelog, add measurements] Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:44:04 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries To reduce amount of damage caused by single bad block, we limit number of inodes sharing an xattr block to 1024. Thus there can be more xattr blocks with the same contents when there are lots of files with the same extended attributes. These xattr blocks naturally result in hash collisions and can form long hash chains and we unnecessarily check each such block only to find out we cannot use it because it is already shared by too many inodes. Add a reusable flag to cache entries which is cleared when a cache entry has reached its maximum refcount. Cache entries which are not marked reusable are skipped by mb_cache_entry_find_{first,next}. This significantly speeds up mbcache when there are many same xattr blocks. For example for xattr-bench with 5 values and each process handling 20000 files, the run for 64 processes is 25x faster with this patch. Even for 8 processes the speedup is almost 3x. We have also verified that for situations where there is only one xattr block of each kind, the patch doesn't have a measurable cost. [JK: Remove handling of setting the same value since it is not needed anymore, check for races in e_reusable setting, improve changelog, add measurements] Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:44:04 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries To reduce amount of damage caused by single bad block, we limit number of inodes sharing an xattr block to 1024. Thus there can be more xattr blocks with the same contents when there are lots of files with the same extended attributes. These xattr blocks naturally result in hash collisions and can form long hash chains and we unnecessarily check each such block only to find out we cannot use it because it is already shared by too many inodes. Add a reusable flag to cache entries which is cleared when a cache entry has reached its maximum refcount. Cache entries which are not marked reusable are skipped by mb_cache_entry_find_{first,next}. This significantly speeds up mbcache when there are many same xattr blocks. For example for xattr-bench with 5 values and each process handling 20000 files, the run for 64 processes is 25x faster with this patch. Even for 8 processes the speedup is almost 3x. We have also verified that for situations where there is only one xattr block of each kind, the patch doesn't have a measurable cost. [JK: Remove handling of setting the same value since it is not needed anymore, check for races in e_reusable setting, improve changelog, add measurements] Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:44:04 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries To reduce amount of damage caused by single bad block, we limit number of inodes sharing an xattr block to 1024. Thus there can be more xattr blocks with the same contents when there are lots of files with the same extended attributes. These xattr blocks naturally result in hash collisions and can form long hash chains and we unnecessarily check each such block only to find out we cannot use it because it is already shared by too many inodes. Add a reusable flag to cache entries which is cleared when a cache entry has reached its maximum refcount. Cache entries which are not marked reusable are skipped by mb_cache_entry_find_{first,next}. This significantly speeds up mbcache when there are many same xattr blocks. For example for xattr-bench with 5 values and each process handling 20000 files, the run for 64 processes is 25x faster with this patch. Even for 8 processes the speedup is almost 3x. We have also verified that for situations where there is only one xattr block of each kind, the patch doesn't have a measurable cost. [JK: Remove handling of setting the same value since it is not needed anymore, check for races in e_reusable setting, improve changelog, add measurements] Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:44:04 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries To reduce amount of damage caused by single bad block, we limit number of inodes sharing an xattr block to 1024. Thus there can be more xattr blocks with the same contents when there are lots of files with the same extended attributes. These xattr blocks naturally result in hash collisions and can form long hash chains and we unnecessarily check each such block only to find out we cannot use it because it is already shared by too many inodes. Add a reusable flag to cache entries which is cleared when a cache entry has reached its maximum refcount. Cache entries which are not marked reusable are skipped by mb_cache_entry_find_{first,next}. This significantly speeds up mbcache when there are many same xattr blocks. For example for xattr-bench with 5 values and each process handling 20000 files, the run for 64 processes is 25x faster with this patch. Even for 8 processes the speedup is almost 3x. We have also verified that for situations where there is only one xattr block of each kind, the patch doesn't have a measurable cost. [JK: Remove handling of setting the same value since it is not needed anymore, check for races in e_reusable setting, improve changelog, add measurements] Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:44:04 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: get rid of _e_hash_list_head Get rid of field _e_hash_list_head in cache entries and add bit field e_referenced instead. Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:42:05 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache: make sure c_entry_count is not decremented past zero Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> CC: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2018-01-09 23:57:52 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: make mbcache naming more generic Make names more generic so that mbcache usage is not limited to block sharing. In a subsequent patch in the series ("ext4: xattr inode deduplication"), we start using the mbcache code for sharing xattr inodes. With that patch, old mb_cache_entry.e_block field could be holding either a block number or an inode number. Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2017-06-22 10:29:53 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: get rid of _e_hash_list_head Get rid of field _e_hash_list_head in cache entries and add bit field e_referenced instead. Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:42:05 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache: use consistent type for entry count mbcache used several different types to represent the number of entries in the cache. For consistency within mbcache and with the shrinker API, always use unsigned long. This does not change behavior for current mbcache users (ext2 and ext4) since they limit the entry count to a value which easily fits in an int. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:43:48 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: use consistent type for entry count mbcache used several different types to represent the number of entries in the cache. For consistency within mbcache and with the shrinker API, always use unsigned long. This does not change behavior for current mbcache users (ext2 and ext4) since they limit the entry count to a value which easily fits in an int. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:43:48 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache: get rid of _e_hash_list_head Get rid of field _e_hash_list_head in cache entries and add bit field e_referenced instead. Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:42:05 -05:00
mbcache: correctly handle 'e_referenced' bit mbcache entries have an 'e_referenced' bit which users can set with mb_cache_entry_touch() to indicate that an entry should be given another pass through the LRU list before the shrinker can delete it. However, mb_cache_shrink() actually would, when seeing an e_referenced entry at the front of the list (the least-recently used end), place it right at the front of the list again. The next iteration would then remove the entry from the list and delete it. Consequently, e_referenced had essentially no effect, so ext2/ext4 xattr blocks would sometimes not be reused as often as expected. Fix this by making the shrinker move e_referenced entries to the back of the list rather than the front. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:13:15 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache: get rid of _e_hash_list_head Get rid of field _e_hash_list_head in cache entries and add bit field e_referenced instead. Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:42:05 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache: use consistent type for entry count mbcache used several different types to represent the number of entries in the cache. For consistency within mbcache and with the shrinker API, always use unsigned long. This does not change behavior for current mbcache users (ext2 and ext4) since they limit the entry count to a value which easily fits in an int. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:43:48 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache: use consistent type for entry count mbcache used several different types to represent the number of entries in the cache. For consistency within mbcache and with the shrinker API, always use unsigned long. This does not change behavior for current mbcache users (ext2 and ext4) since they limit the entry count to a value which easily fits in an int. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:43:48 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: fix to detect failure of register_shrinker register_shrinker in mb_cache_create may fail due to no memory. This patch fixes to do the check of return value of register_shrinker and handle the error case, otherwise mb_cache_create may return with no error, but losing the inner shrinker. Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-08-31 11:44:36 -04:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: limit cache size So far number of entries in mbcache is limited only by the pressure from the shrinker. Since too many entries degrade the hash table and generally we expect that caching more entries has diminishing returns, limit number of entries the same way as in the old mbcache to 16 * hash table size. Once we exceed the desired maximum number of entries, we schedule a backround work to reclaim entries. If the background work cannot keep up and the number of entries exceeds two times the desired maximum, we reclaim some entries directly when allocating a new entry. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 12:33:03 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: Use referenced bit instead of LRU Currently we maintain perfect LRU list by moving entry to the tail of the list when it gets used. However these operations on cache-global list are relatively expensive. In this patch we switch to lazy updates of LRU list. Whenever entry gets used, we set a referenced bit in it. When reclaiming entries, we give referenced entries another round in the LRU. Since the list is not a real LRU anymore, rename it to just 'list'. In my testing this logic gives about 30% boost to workloads with mostly unique xattr blocks (e.g. xattr-bench with 10 files and 10000 unique xattr values). Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 18:23:47 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache: don't BUG() if entry cache cannot be allocated mbcache can be a module that is loaded long after startup, when someone asks to mount an ext2 or ext4 filesystem. Therefore it should not BUG() if kmem_cache_create() fails, but rather just fail the module load. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
2016-12-03 15:28:53 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00
mbcache2: rename to mbcache Since old mbcache code is gone, let's rename new code to mbcache since number 2 is now meaningless. This is just a mechanical replacement. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 22:35:22 -05:00
mbcache2: reimplement mbcache Original mbcache was designed to have more features than what ext? filesystems ended up using. It supported entry being in more hashes, it had a home-grown rwlocking of each entry, and one cache could cache entries from multiple filesystems. This genericity also resulted in more complex locking, larger cache entries, and generally more code complexity. This is reimplementation of the mbcache functionality to exactly fit the purpose ext? filesystems use it for. Cache entries are now considerably smaller (7 instead of 13 longs), the code is considerably smaller as well (414 vs 913 lines of code), and IMO also simpler. The new code is also much more lightweight. I have measured the speed using artificial xattr-bench benchmark, which spawns P processes, each process sets xattr for F different files, and the value of xattr is randomly chosen from a pool of V values. Averages of runtimes for 5 runs for various combinations of parameters are below. The first value in each cell is old mbache, the second value is the new mbcache. V=10 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.158,0.157 0.208,0.196 0.500,0.277 0.798,0.400 3.258,0.584 13.807,1.047 61.339,2.803 100 0.172,0.167 0.279,0.222 0.520,0.275 0.825,0.341 2.981,0.505 12.022,1.202 44.641,2.943 1000 0.185,0.174 0.297,0.239 0.445,0.283 0.767,0.340 2.329,0.480 6.342,1.198 16.440,3.888 V=100 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.162,0.153 0.200,0.186 0.362,0.257 0.671,0.496 1.433,0.943 3.801,1.345 7.938,2.501 100 0.153,0.160 0.221,0.199 0.404,0.264 0.945,0.379 1.556,0.485 3.761,1.156 7.901,2.484 1000 0.215,0.191 0.303,0.246 0.471,0.288 0.960,0.347 1.647,0.479 3.916,1.176 8.058,3.160 V=1000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.151,0.129 0.210,0.163 0.326,0.245 0.685,0.521 1.284,0.859 3.087,2.251 6.451,4.801 100 0.154,0.153 0.211,0.191 0.276,0.282 0.687,0.506 1.202,0.877 3.259,1.954 8.738,2.887 1000 0.145,0.179 0.202,0.222 0.449,0.319 0.899,0.333 1.577,0.524 4.221,1.240 9.782,3.579 V=10000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.161,0.154 0.198,0.190 0.296,0.256 0.662,0.480 1.192,0.818 2.989,2.200 6.362,4.746 100 0.176,0.174 0.236,0.203 0.326,0.255 0.696,0.511 1.183,0.855 4.205,3.444 19.510,17.760 1000 0.199,0.183 0.240,0.227 1.159,1.014 2.286,2.154 6.023,6.039 ---,10.933 ---,36.620 V=100000 F\P 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 10 0.171,0.162 0.204,0.198 0.285,0.230 0.692,0.500 1.225,0.881 2.990,2.243 6.379,4.771 100 0.151,0.171 0.220,0.210 0.295,0.255 0.720,0.518 1.226,0.844 3.423,2.831 19.234,17.544 1000 0.192,0.189 0.249,0.225 1.162,1.043 2.257,2.093 5.853,4.997 ---,10.399 ---,32.198 We see that the new code is faster in pretty much all the cases and starting from 4 processes there are significant gains with the new code resulting in upto 20-times shorter runtimes. Also for large numbers of cached entries all values for the old code could not be measured as the kernel started hitting softlockups and died before the test completed. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2016-02-22 11:49:09 -05:00