xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 21/36] xfs: Dont allocate new buffers on every cal

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [3.0-stable PATCH 21/36] xfs: Dont allocate new buffers on every call to _xfs_buf_find
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:50:36 +1100
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121203144310.741066962@xxxxxxx>
References: <20121203144208.143464631@xxxxxxx> <20121203144310.741066962@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 05:42:29PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Upstream commit: 3815832a2aa4df9815d15dac05227e0c8551833f
> 
> Stats show that for an 8-way unlink @ ~80,000 unlinks/s we are doing
> ~1 million cache hit lookups to ~3000 buffer creates. That's almost
> 3 orders of magnitude more cahce hits than misses, so optimising for
> cache hits is quite important. In the cache hit case, we do not need
> to allocate a new buffer in case of a cache miss, so we are
> effectively hitting the allocator for no good reason for vast the
> majority of calls to _xfs_buf_find. 8-way create workloads are
> showing similar cache hit/miss ratios.
> 
> The result is profiles that look like this:
> 
>      samples  pcnt function                        DSO
>      _______ _____ _______________________________ _________________
> 
>      1036.00 10.0% _xfs_buf_find                   [kernel.kallsyms]
>       582.00  5.6% kmem_cache_alloc                [kernel.kallsyms]
>       519.00  5.0% __memcpy                        [kernel.kallsyms]
>       468.00  4.5% __ticket_spin_lock              [kernel.kallsyms]
>       388.00  3.7% kmem_cache_free                 [kernel.kallsyms]
>       331.00  3.2% xfs_log_commit_cil              [kernel.kallsyms]
> 
> 
> Further, there is a fair bit of work involved in initialising a new
> buffer once a cache miss has occurred and we currently do that under
> the rbtree spinlock. That increases spinlock hold time on what are
> heavily used trees.
> 
> To fix this, remove the initialisation of the buffer from
> _xfs_buf_find() and only allocate the new buffer once we've had a
> cache miss. Initialise the buffer immediately after allocating it in
> xfs_buf_get, too, so that is it ready for insert if we get another
> cache miss after allocation. This minimises lock hold time and
> avoids unnecessary allocator churn. The resulting profiles look
> like:
> 
>      samples  pcnt function                    DSO
>      _______ _____ ___________________________ _________________
> 
>      8111.00  9.1% _xfs_buf_find               [kernel.kallsyms]
>      4380.00  4.9% __memcpy                    [kernel.kallsyms]
>      4341.00  4.8% __ticket_spin_lock          [kernel.kallsyms]
>      3401.00  3.8% kmem_cache_alloc            [kernel.kallsyms]
>      2856.00  3.2% xfs_log_commit_cil          [kernel.kallsyms]
>      2625.00  2.9% __kmalloc                   [kernel.kallsyms]
>      2380.00  2.7% kfree                       [kernel.kallsyms]
>      2016.00  2.3% kmem_cache_free             [kernel.kallsyms]
> 
> Showing a significant reduction in time spent doing allocation and
> freeing from slabs (kmem_cache_alloc and kmem_cache_free).

Optimisation, not a bug fix. And it introduced new race conditions,
which mean you've got to pull cleanup and other bug fixes into the
series...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>