Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2023 20:21:38 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To:     Wang Jianchao <jianchwa@outlook.com>,
        Chandan Babu R <chandanrlinux@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] xfs: use roundup_pow_of_two instead of ffs during
 xlog_find_tail
Message-ID: <20230919032138.GC348037@frogsfrogsfrogs>
References: <63b3742c-0efe-c096-c737-a0e0419480bd@outlook.com>
 <59dd15dd-5b35-871d-6d3a-ec779975b089@outlook.com>
 <0a72f462-8b8e-4dec-6ce4-f52e33423957@outlook.com>
 <CY8PR05MB9378441D3F6430D1A414142BCDFAA@CY8PR05MB9378.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CY8PR05MB9378441D3F6430D1A414142BCDFAA@CY8PR05MB9378.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:06:56AM +0800, Wang Jianchao wrote:
> Ping ? Do I need other update on this patch ?

Nope, I think this is ok...

> Thanks
> Jianchao
> 
> On 2023/9/13 09:38, Wang Jianchao wrote:
> > 
> > In our production environment, we find that mounting a 500M /boot
> > which is umount cleanly needs ~6s. One cause is that ffs() is
> > used by xlog_write_log_records() to decide the buffer size. It
> > can cause a lot of small IO easily when xlog_clear_stale_blocks()
> > needs to wrap around the end of log area and log head block is
> > not power of two. Things are similar in xlog_find_verify_cycle().
> > 
> > The code is able to handed bigger buffer very well, we can use
> > roundup_pow_of_two() to replace ffs() directly to avoid small
> > and sychronous IOs.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Wang Jianchao <wangjc136@midea.com>

...so let's see if the release manager will take this patch.

Chandan?  Could you pull in the various one-off patches floating around
on the list that have passed review?  ;)

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>

PS: If you'd like to send a pull request to push things along, please do

--D

> > ---
> > 
> > Changes in V2:
> >  - Move change log below "---"
> >  - Add reviewed-by Dave Chinner tag
> > 
> > Changes in V1:
> >  - Also replace the ffs in xlog_find_verify_cycle()
> > 
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
> > index 82c81d20459d..13b94d2e605b 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
> > @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ xlog_find_verify_cycle(
> >  	 * try a smaller size.  We need to be able to read at least
> >  	 * a log sector, or we're out of luck.
> >  	 */
> > -	bufblks = 1 << ffs(nbblks);
> > +	bufblks = roundup_pow_of_two(nbblks);
> >  	while (bufblks > log->l_logBBsize)
> >  		bufblks >>= 1;
> >  	while (!(buffer = xlog_alloc_buffer(log, bufblks))) {
> > @@ -1528,7 +1528,7 @@ xlog_write_log_records(
> >  	 * a smaller size.  We need to be able to write at least a
> >  	 * log sector, or we're out of luck.
> >  	 */
> > -	bufblks = 1 << ffs(blocks);
> > +	bufblks = roundup_pow_of_two(blocks);
> >  	while (bufblks > log->l_logBBsize)
> >  		bufblks >>= 1;
> >  	while (!(buffer = xlog_alloc_buffer(log, bufblks))) {