kernel/linux
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ synced 2026-09-28 19:20:30 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Packages Activity
linux/fs/mbcache.c

445 lines
13 KiB
Raw Permalink Normal View History

treewide: Add SPDX license identifier for more missed files Add SPDX license identifiers to all files which: - Have no license information of any form - Have MODULE_LICENCE("GPL*") inside which was used in the initial scan/conversion to ignore the file These files fall under the project license, GPL v2 only. The resulting SPDX license identifier is: GPL-2.0-only Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2019-05-19 13:08:20 +01:00
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: 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 functions to delete entry if unused Add function mb_cache_entry_delete_or_get() to delete mbcache entry if it is unused and also add a function to wait for entry to become unused - mb_cache_entry_wait_unused(). We do not share code between the two deleting function as one of them will go away soon. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 82939d7999df ("ext4: convert to mbcache2") Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-2-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:21 +02:00
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
mbcache: Avoid nesting of cache->c_list_lock under bit locks Commit 307af6c87937 ("mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing") started nesting cache->c_list_lock under the bit locks protecting hash buckets of the mbcache hash table in mb_cache_entry_create(). This causes problems for real-time kernels because there spinlocks are sleeping locks while bitlocks stay atomic. Luckily the nesting is easy to avoid by holding entry reference until the entry is added to the LRU list. This makes sure we cannot race with entry deletion. Cc: stable@kernel.org Fixes: 307af6c87937 ("mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing") Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220908091032.10513-1-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-09-08 11:10:32 +02:00
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
ext4: fix deadlock due to mbcache entry corruption When manipulating xattr blocks, we can deadlock infinitely looping inside ext4_xattr_block_set() where we constantly keep finding xattr block for reuse in mbcache but we are unable to reuse it because its reference count is too big. This happens because cache entry for the xattr block is marked as reusable (e_reusable set) although its reference count is too big. When this inconsistency happens, this inconsistent state is kept indefinitely and so ext4_xattr_block_set() keeps retrying indefinitely. The inconsistent state is caused by non-atomic update of e_reusable bit. e_reusable is part of a bitfield and e_reusable update can race with update of e_referenced bit in the same bitfield resulting in loss of one of the updates. Fix the problem by using atomic bitops instead. This bug has been around for many years, but it became *much* easier to hit after commit 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks"). Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 6048c64b2609 ("mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries") Fixes: 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks") Reported-and-tested-by: Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com> Reported-by: Thilo Fromm <t-lo@linux.microsoft.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/c77bf00f-4618-7149-56f1-b8d1664b9d07@linux.microsoft.com/ Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221123193950.16758-1-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-11-23 20:39:50 +01:00
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
mbcache: Avoid nesting of cache->c_list_lock under bit locks Commit 307af6c87937 ("mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing") started nesting cache->c_list_lock under the bit locks protecting hash buckets of the mbcache hash table in mb_cache_entry_create(). This causes problems for real-time kernels because there spinlocks are sleeping locks while bitlocks stay atomic. Luckily the nesting is easy to avoid by holding entry reference until the entry is added to the LRU list. This makes sure we cannot race with entry deletion. Cc: stable@kernel.org Fixes: 307af6c87937 ("mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing") Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220908091032.10513-1-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-09-08 11:10:32 +02:00
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: Avoid nesting of cache->c_list_lock under bit locks Commit 307af6c87937 ("mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing") started nesting cache->c_list_lock under the bit locks protecting hash buckets of the mbcache hash table in mb_cache_entry_create(). This causes problems for real-time kernels because there spinlocks are sleeping locks while bitlocks stay atomic. Luckily the nesting is easy to avoid by holding entry reference until the entry is added to the LRU list. This makes sure we cannot race with entry deletion. Cc: stable@kernel.org Fixes: 307af6c87937 ("mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing") Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220908091032.10513-1-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-09-08 11:10:32 +02:00
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: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
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: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
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 functions to delete entry if unused Add function mb_cache_entry_delete_or_get() to delete mbcache entry if it is unused and also add a function to wait for entry to become unused - mb_cache_entry_wait_unused(). We do not share code between the two deleting function as one of them will go away soon. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 82939d7999df ("ext4: convert to mbcache2") Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-2-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:21 +02:00
mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
mbcache: add functions to delete entry if unused Add function mb_cache_entry_delete_or_get() to delete mbcache entry if it is unused and also add a function to wait for entry to become unused - mb_cache_entry_wait_unused(). We do not share code between the two deleting function as one of them will go away soon. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 82939d7999df ("ext4: convert to mbcache2") Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-2-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:21 +02:00
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
ext4: fix deadlock due to mbcache entry corruption When manipulating xattr blocks, we can deadlock infinitely looping inside ext4_xattr_block_set() where we constantly keep finding xattr block for reuse in mbcache but we are unable to reuse it because its reference count is too big. This happens because cache entry for the xattr block is marked as reusable (e_reusable set) although its reference count is too big. When this inconsistency happens, this inconsistent state is kept indefinitely and so ext4_xattr_block_set() keeps retrying indefinitely. The inconsistent state is caused by non-atomic update of e_reusable bit. e_reusable is part of a bitfield and e_reusable update can race with update of e_referenced bit in the same bitfield resulting in loss of one of the updates. Fix the problem by using atomic bitops instead. This bug has been around for many years, but it became *much* easier to hit after commit 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks"). Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 6048c64b2609 ("mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries") Fixes: 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks") Reported-and-tested-by: Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com> Reported-by: Thilo Fromm <t-lo@linux.microsoft.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/c77bf00f-4618-7149-56f1-b8d1664b9d07@linux.microsoft.com/ Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221123193950.16758-1-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-11-23 20:39:50 +01:00
mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
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: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
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: add functions to delete entry if unused Add function mb_cache_entry_delete_or_get() to delete mbcache entry if it is unused and also add a function to wait for entry to become unused - mb_cache_entry_wait_unused(). We do not share code between the two deleting function as one of them will go away soon. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 82939d7999df ("ext4: convert to mbcache2") Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-2-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:21 +02:00
mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
mbcache: add functions to delete entry if unused Add function mb_cache_entry_delete_or_get() to delete mbcache entry if it is unused and also add a function to wait for entry to become unused - mb_cache_entry_wait_unused(). We do not share code between the two deleting function as one of them will go away soon. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 82939d7999df ("ext4: convert to mbcache2") Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-2-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:21 +02:00
mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
mbcache: add functions to delete entry if unused Add function mb_cache_entry_delete_or_get() to delete mbcache entry if it is unused and also add a function to wait for entry to become unused - mb_cache_entry_wait_unused(). We do not share code between the two deleting function as one of them will go away soon. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 82939d7999df ("ext4: convert to mbcache2") Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-2-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:21 +02:00
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
ext4: fix deadlock due to mbcache entry corruption When manipulating xattr blocks, we can deadlock infinitely looping inside ext4_xattr_block_set() where we constantly keep finding xattr block for reuse in mbcache but we are unable to reuse it because its reference count is too big. This happens because cache entry for the xattr block is marked as reusable (e_reusable set) although its reference count is too big. When this inconsistency happens, this inconsistent state is kept indefinitely and so ext4_xattr_block_set() keeps retrying indefinitely. The inconsistent state is caused by non-atomic update of e_reusable bit. e_reusable is part of a bitfield and e_reusable update can race with update of e_referenced bit in the same bitfield resulting in loss of one of the updates. Fix the problem by using atomic bitops instead. This bug has been around for many years, but it became *much* easier to hit after commit 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks"). Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 6048c64b2609 ("mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries") Fixes: 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks") Reported-and-tested-by: Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com> Reported-by: Thilo Fromm <t-lo@linux.microsoft.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/c77bf00f-4618-7149-56f1-b8d1664b9d07@linux.microsoft.com/ Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221123193950.16758-1-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-11-23 20:39:50 +01:00
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
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: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
ext4: fix deadlock due to mbcache entry corruption When manipulating xattr blocks, we can deadlock infinitely looping inside ext4_xattr_block_set() where we constantly keep finding xattr block for reuse in mbcache but we are unable to reuse it because its reference count is too big. This happens because cache entry for the xattr block is marked as reusable (e_reusable set) although its reference count is too big. When this inconsistency happens, this inconsistent state is kept indefinitely and so ext4_xattr_block_set() keeps retrying indefinitely. The inconsistent state is caused by non-atomic update of e_reusable bit. e_reusable is part of a bitfield and e_reusable update can race with update of e_referenced bit in the same bitfield resulting in loss of one of the updates. Fix the problem by using atomic bitops instead. This bug has been around for many years, but it became *much* easier to hit after commit 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks"). Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 6048c64b2609 ("mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries") Fixes: 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks") Reported-and-tested-by: Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com> Reported-by: Thilo Fromm <t-lo@linux.microsoft.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/c77bf00f-4618-7149-56f1-b8d1664b9d07@linux.microsoft.com/ Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221123193950.16758-1-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-11-23 20:39:50 +01:00
mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
ext4: fix deadlock due to mbcache entry corruption When manipulating xattr blocks, we can deadlock infinitely looping inside ext4_xattr_block_set() where we constantly keep finding xattr block for reuse in mbcache but we are unable to reuse it because its reference count is too big. This happens because cache entry for the xattr block is marked as reusable (e_reusable set) although its reference count is too big. When this inconsistency happens, this inconsistent state is kept indefinitely and so ext4_xattr_block_set() keeps retrying indefinitely. The inconsistent state is caused by non-atomic update of e_reusable bit. e_reusable is part of a bitfield and e_reusable update can race with update of e_referenced bit in the same bitfield resulting in loss of one of the updates. Fix the problem by using atomic bitops instead. This bug has been around for many years, but it became *much* easier to hit after commit 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks"). Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 6048c64b2609 ("mbcache: add reusable flag to cache entries") Fixes: 65f8b80053a1 ("ext4: fix race when reusing xattr blocks") Reported-and-tested-by: Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com> Reported-by: Thilo Fromm <t-lo@linux.microsoft.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/c77bf00f-4618-7149-56f1-b8d1664b9d07@linux.microsoft.com/ Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221123193950.16758-1-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-11-23 20:39:50 +01:00
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: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing Use the fact that entries with elevated refcount are not removed from the hash and just move removal of the entry from the hash to the entry freeing time. When doing this we also change the generic code to hold one reference to the cache entry, not two of them, which makes code somewhat more obvious. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220712105436.32204-10-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
2022-07-12 12:54:29 +02:00
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
treewide: kmalloc() -> kmalloc_array() The kmalloc() function has a 2-factor argument form, kmalloc_array(). This patch replaces cases of: kmalloc(a * b, gfp) with: kmalloc_array(a * b, gfp) as well as handling cases of: kmalloc(a * b * c, gfp) with: kmalloc(array3_size(a, b, c), gfp) as it's slightly less ugly than: kmalloc_array(array_size(a, b), c, gfp) This does, however, attempt to ignore constant size factors like: kmalloc(4 * 1024, gfp) though any constants defined via macros get caught up in the conversion. Any factors with a sizeof() of "unsigned char", "char", and "u8" were dropped, since they're redundant. The tools/ directory was manually excluded, since it has its own implementation of kmalloc(). The Coccinelle script used for this was: // Fix redundant parens around sizeof(). @@ type TYPE; expression THING, E; @@ ( kmalloc( - (sizeof(TYPE)) * E + sizeof(TYPE) * E , ...) | kmalloc( - (sizeof(THING)) * E + sizeof(THING) * E , ...) ) // Drop single-byte sizes and redundant parens. @@ expression COUNT; typedef u8; typedef __u8; @@ ( kmalloc( - sizeof(u8) * (COUNT) + COUNT , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(__u8) * (COUNT) + COUNT , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(char) * (COUNT) + COUNT , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(unsigned char) * (COUNT) + COUNT , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(u8) * COUNT + COUNT , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(__u8) * COUNT + COUNT , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(char) * COUNT + COUNT , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(unsigned char) * COUNT + COUNT , ...) ) // 2-factor product with sizeof(type/expression) and identifier or constant. @@ type TYPE; expression THING; identifier COUNT_ID; constant COUNT_CONST; @@ ( - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(TYPE) * (COUNT_ID) + COUNT_ID, sizeof(TYPE) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(TYPE) * COUNT_ID + COUNT_ID, sizeof(TYPE) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(TYPE) * (COUNT_CONST) + COUNT_CONST, sizeof(TYPE) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(TYPE) * COUNT_CONST + COUNT_CONST, sizeof(TYPE) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(THING) * (COUNT_ID) + COUNT_ID, sizeof(THING) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(THING) * COUNT_ID + COUNT_ID, sizeof(THING) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(THING) * (COUNT_CONST) + COUNT_CONST, sizeof(THING) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(THING) * COUNT_CONST + COUNT_CONST, sizeof(THING) , ...) ) // 2-factor product, only identifiers. @@ identifier SIZE, COUNT; @@ - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - SIZE * COUNT + COUNT, SIZE , ...) // 3-factor product with 1 sizeof(type) or sizeof(expression), with // redundant parens removed. @@ expression THING; identifier STRIDE, COUNT; type TYPE; @@ ( kmalloc( - sizeof(TYPE) * (COUNT) * (STRIDE) + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, sizeof(TYPE)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(TYPE) * (COUNT) * STRIDE + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, sizeof(TYPE)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(TYPE) * COUNT * (STRIDE) + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, sizeof(TYPE)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(TYPE) * COUNT * STRIDE + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, sizeof(TYPE)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(THING) * (COUNT) * (STRIDE) + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, sizeof(THING)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(THING) * (COUNT) * STRIDE + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, sizeof(THING)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(THING) * COUNT * (STRIDE) + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, sizeof(THING)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(THING) * COUNT * STRIDE + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, sizeof(THING)) , ...) ) // 3-factor product with 2 sizeof(variable), with redundant parens removed. @@ expression THING1, THING2; identifier COUNT; type TYPE1, TYPE2; @@ ( kmalloc( - sizeof(TYPE1) * sizeof(TYPE2) * COUNT + array3_size(COUNT, sizeof(TYPE1), sizeof(TYPE2)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(TYPE1) * sizeof(THING2) * (COUNT) + array3_size(COUNT, sizeof(TYPE1), sizeof(TYPE2)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(THING1) * sizeof(THING2) * COUNT + array3_size(COUNT, sizeof(THING1), sizeof(THING2)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(THING1) * sizeof(THING2) * (COUNT) + array3_size(COUNT, sizeof(THING1), sizeof(THING2)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(TYPE1) * sizeof(THING2) * COUNT + array3_size(COUNT, sizeof(TYPE1), sizeof(THING2)) , ...) | kmalloc( - sizeof(TYPE1) * sizeof(THING2) * (COUNT) + array3_size(COUNT, sizeof(TYPE1), sizeof(THING2)) , ...) ) // 3-factor product, only identifiers, with redundant parens removed. @@ identifier STRIDE, SIZE, COUNT; @@ ( kmalloc( - (COUNT) * STRIDE * SIZE + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, SIZE) , ...) | kmalloc( - COUNT * (STRIDE) * SIZE + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, SIZE) , ...) | kmalloc( - COUNT * STRIDE * (SIZE) + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, SIZE) , ...) | kmalloc( - (COUNT) * (STRIDE) * SIZE + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, SIZE) , ...) | kmalloc( - COUNT * (STRIDE) * (SIZE) + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, SIZE) , ...) | kmalloc( - (COUNT) * STRIDE * (SIZE) + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, SIZE) , ...) | kmalloc( - (COUNT) * (STRIDE) * (SIZE) + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, SIZE) , ...) | kmalloc( - COUNT * STRIDE * SIZE + array3_size(COUNT, STRIDE, SIZE) , ...) ) // Any remaining multi-factor products, first at least 3-factor products, // when they're not all constants... @@ expression E1, E2, E3; constant C1, C2, C3; @@ ( kmalloc(C1 * C2 * C3, ...) | kmalloc( - (E1) * E2 * E3 + array3_size(E1, E2, E3) , ...) | kmalloc( - (E1) * (E2) * E3 + array3_size(E1, E2, E3) , ...) | kmalloc( - (E1) * (E2) * (E3) + array3_size(E1, E2, E3) , ...) | kmalloc( - E1 * E2 * E3 + array3_size(E1, E2, E3) , ...) ) // And then all remaining 2 factors products when they're not all constants, // keeping sizeof() as the second factor argument. @@ expression THING, E1, E2; type TYPE; constant C1, C2, C3; @@ ( kmalloc(sizeof(THING) * C2, ...) | kmalloc(sizeof(TYPE) * C2, ...) | kmalloc(C1 * C2 * C3, ...) | kmalloc(C1 * C2, ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(TYPE) * (E2) + E2, sizeof(TYPE) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(TYPE) * E2 + E2, sizeof(TYPE) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(THING) * (E2) + E2, sizeof(THING) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - sizeof(THING) * E2 + E2, sizeof(THING) , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - (E1) * E2 + E1, E2 , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - (E1) * (E2) + E1, E2 , ...) | - kmalloc + kmalloc_array ( - E1 * E2 + E1, E2 , ...) ) Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-06-12 13:55:00 -07:00
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
mm: shrinkers: provide shrinkers with names Currently shrinkers are anonymous objects. For debugging purposes they can be identified by count/scan function names, but it's not always useful: e.g. for superblock's shrinkers it's nice to have at least an idea of to which superblock the shrinker belongs. This commit adds names to shrinkers. register_shrinker() and prealloc_shrinker() functions are extended to take a format and arguments to master a name. In some cases it's not possible to determine a good name at the time when a shrinker is allocated. For such cases shrinker_debugfs_rename() is provided. The expected format is: <subsystem>-<shrinker_type>[:<instance>]-<id> For some shrinkers an instance can be encoded as (MAJOR:MINOR) pair. After this change the shrinker debugfs directory looks like: $ cd /sys/kernel/debug/shrinker/ $ ls dquota-cache-16 sb-devpts-28 sb-proc-47 sb-tmpfs-42 mm-shadow-18 sb-devtmpfs-5 sb-proc-48 sb-tmpfs-43 mm-zspool:zram0-34 sb-hugetlbfs-17 sb-pstore-31 sb-tmpfs-44 rcu-kfree-0 sb-hugetlbfs-33 sb-rootfs-2 sb-tmpfs-49 sb-aio-20 sb-iomem-12 sb-securityfs-6 sb-tracefs-13 sb-anon_inodefs-15 sb-mqueue-21 sb-selinuxfs-22 sb-xfs:vda1-36 sb-bdev-3 sb-nsfs-4 sb-sockfs-8 sb-zsmalloc-19 sb-bpf-32 sb-pipefs-14 sb-sysfs-26 thp-deferred_split-10 sb-btrfs:vda2-24 sb-proc-25 sb-tmpfs-1 thp-zero-9 sb-cgroup2-30 sb-proc-39 sb-tmpfs-27 xfs-buf:vda1-37 sb-configfs-23 sb-proc-41 sb-tmpfs-29 xfs-inodegc:vda1-38 sb-dax-11 sb-proc-45 sb-tmpfs-35 sb-debugfs-7 sb-proc-46 sb-tmpfs-40 [roman.gushchin@linux.dev: fix build warnings] Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Yr+ZTnLb9lJk6fJO@castle Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220601032227.4076670-4-roman.gushchin@linux.dev Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2022-05-31 20:22:24 -07:00
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: 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