Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753882Ab3IKD3W (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:29:22 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:50871 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753793Ab3IKD3S convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:29:18 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,881,1371052800"; d="scan'208";a="8483952" Message-ID: <522FDFC3.3010200@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:13:07 +0800 From: Gu Zheng User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110930 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com CC: chao2.yu@samsung.com, shu.tan@samsung.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev][PATCH] f2fs: optimize fs_lock for better performance References: <88.C4.11914.9D4A9225@epcpsbge6.samsung.com> <1378774324.2354.103.camel@kjgkr> In-Reply-To: <1378774324.2354.103.camel@kjgkr> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2013/09/11 11:15:34, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2013/09/11 11:15:41 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3880 Lines: 178 Hi Jaegeuk, On 09/10/2013 08:52 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi, > > At first, thank you for the report and please follow the email writing > rules. :) > > Anyway, I agree to the below issue. > One thing that I can think of is that we don't need to use the > spin_lock, since we don't care about the exact lock number, but just > need to get any not-collided number. Agree, but if all the locks are held, IMO, we need to balance the following threads to wait for each not-collided number lock, though complete balance is unreachable. > > So, how about removing the spin_lock? Yeah, in this case, spin_lock is a bit heavy cost. > And how about using a random number? Now NR_GLOBAL_LOCKS is 8, it seems that random can not offer an balance number as we expected. Regards, Gu > Thanks, > > 2013-09-06 (금), 09:48 +0000, Chao Yu: >> Hi Kim: >> >> I think there is a performance problem: when all sbi->fs_lock is >> holded, >> >> then all other threads may get the same next_lock value from >> sbi->next_lock_num in function mutex_lock_op, >> >> and wait to get the same lock at position fs_lock[next_lock], it >> unbalance the fs_lock usage. >> >> It may lost performance when we do the multithread test. >> >> >> >> Here is the patch to fix this problem: >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Yu Chao >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h >> >> old mode 100644 >> >> new mode 100755 >> >> index 467d42d..983bb45 >> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h >> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h >> >> @@ -371,6 +371,7 @@ struct f2fs_sb_info { >> >> struct mutex fs_lock[NR_GLOBAL_LOCKS]; /* blocking FS >> operations */ >> >> struct mutex node_write; /* locking node writes >> */ >> >> struct mutex writepages; /* mutex for >> writepages() */ >> >> + spinlock_t spin_lock; /* lock for >> next_lock_num */ >> >> unsigned char next_lock_num; /* round-robin global >> locks */ >> >> int por_doing; /* recovery is doing >> or not */ >> >> int on_build_free_nids; /* build_free_nids is >> doing */ >> >> @@ -533,15 +534,19 @@ static inline void mutex_unlock_all(struct >> f2fs_sb_info *sbi) >> >> >> >> static inline int mutex_lock_op(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) >> >> { >> >> - unsigned char next_lock = sbi->next_lock_num % >> NR_GLOBAL_LOCKS; >> >> + unsigned char next_lock; >> >> int i = 0; >> >> >> >> for (; i < NR_GLOBAL_LOCKS; i++) >> >> if (mutex_trylock(&sbi->fs_lock[i])) >> >> return i; >> >> >> >> - mutex_lock(&sbi->fs_lock[next_lock]); >> >> + spin_lock(&sbi->spin_lock); >> >> + next_lock = sbi->next_lock_num % NR_GLOBAL_LOCKS; >> >> sbi->next_lock_num++; >> >> + spin_unlock(&sbi->spin_lock); >> >> + >> >> + mutex_lock(&sbi->fs_lock[next_lock]); >> >> return next_lock; >> >> } >> >> >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c >> >> old mode 100644 >> >> new mode 100755 >> >> index 75c7dc3..4f27596 >> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c >> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c >> >> @@ -657,6 +657,7 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, >> void *data, int silent) >> >> mutex_init(&sbi->cp_mutex); >> >> for (i = 0; i < NR_GLOBAL_LOCKS; i++) >> >> mutex_init(&sbi->fs_lock[i]); >> >> + spin_lock_init(&sbi->spin_lock); >> >> mutex_init(&sbi->node_write); >> >> sbi->por_doing = 0; >> >> spin_lock_init(&sbi->stat_lock); >> >> (END) >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/