On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 08:57:30PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 07:56 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:47:23PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
> >> Hi Dave,
> >>
> >> On 09/23/2013 08:56 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 04:25:15PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
> >>>> From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> At xfs_iext_realloc_direct(), the new_size is changed by adding
> >>>> if_bytes if originally the extent records are stored at the inline
> >>>> extent buffer, and we have to switch from it to a direct extent
> >>>> list for those new allocated extents, this is wrong. e.g,
....
> >> Actually, what I want to say is that we don't need to perform
> >> "new_size += ifp->if_bytes;" again at xfs_iext_realloc_direct()
> >> because the new_size at xfs_iext_add() already be the size of
> >> extents after adding, just as the variable comments is mentioned.
> >
> > Yes, I understand.
> >
> > What I'm really asking is that whether there is any specific impact
> > you can measure as a result of changing the initial allocation size?
> > i.e. are there workloads where there is a measurable difference in
> > memory footprint or noticable performance impact of having to
> > reallocate the direct array more frequently as files grow and/or
> > shrink?
>
> Not yet observed any performance matter, but IMO this problem can cause
> difference in dynamic memory footprint for creating a large number of
> files with 3 extents and with additional kmalloc/kfree overhead for 4
> extents file.
>
> For the first case, the current code will allocate buffers from
> kmalloc-128 slab cache rather than kmalloc-64, hence it would occupy
> more memory until being dropped from the cache, e.g,
>
> # Create 10240 files with 3 extents
> for ((i=0; i<10240; i++))
> do
> xfs_io -f -c 'truncate 10m' /xfs/test_$i
> xfs_io -c 'pwrite 0 1' /xfs/test_$i 2>&1 >>/dev/null
> xfs_io -c 'pwrite 1m 1' /xfs/test_$i 2>&1 >>/dev/null
> xfs_io -c 'pwrite 5m 1' /xfs/test_$i 2>&1 >>/dev/null
> done
>
> # cat /proc/slab_info
> # name <active_objs> <num_objs> <objsize> <objperslab>
> <pagesperslab>...
>
> # Non-patched -- before creating files
> kmalloc-128 5391 6176 128 32 1
> kmalloc-64 21852 25152 64 64 1
>
> # After that -- the number of objects in 128 slab increased significantly,
> while
> there basically no change in 64 slab
> kmalloc-128 15381 15488 128 32 1
> kmalloc-64 21958 25088 64 64 1
>
>
> # patched -- before creating files
> kmalloc-128 5751 7072 128 32 1
> kmalloc-64 21420 24896 64 64 1
>
> After after
> kmalloc-128 6155 6688 128 32 1
> kmalloc-64 30464 30464 64 64 1
>
> With this patch, we can reduce the memory footprint for this particular
> scenario.
Ok, so it's used the kmalloc-64 slab much more effectively and not
touched the kmalloc-128 slab. Ok, so thats a measurable difference ;)
>
> For the 2nd case, i.e, 4 extents file. It need to resize the direct extent
> list
> to add the fourth extent because rnew_bytes is be re-initialized to 64 at the
> beginning of xfs_iext_realloc_direct(), however the ifp->if_real_bytes is
> 128...
...
> # The number of kmalloc calls
> Default Patched
> 110364 103471
And that demonstrates the impact in that the array is downsized as
the array grows. Ok, I'm convinced there is a net win here :)
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|