From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:64236 "EHLO mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752738Ab3HaMzI (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Aug 2013 08:55:08 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id en1so402877wid.7 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 05:55:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Filipe David Borba Manana To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com, jbacik@fusionio.com, Filipe David Borba Manana Subject: [PATCH v6] Btrfs: optimize key searches in btrfs_search_slot Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 13:54:56 +0100 Message-Id: <1377953696-28466-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1377780253-17826-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@gmail.com> References: <1377780253-17826-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@gmail.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: When the binary search returns 0 (exact match), the target key will necessarily be at slot 0 of all nodes below the current one, so in this case the binary search is not needed because it will always return 0, and we waste time doing it, holding node locks for longer than necessary, etc. Below follow histograms with the times spent on the current approach of doing a binary search when the previous binary search returned 0, and times for the new approach, which directly picks the first item/child node in the leaf/node. Current approach: Count: 6682 Range: 35.000 - 8370.000; Mean: 85.837; Median: 75.000; Stddev: 106.429 Percentiles: 90th: 124.000; 95th: 145.000; 99th: 206.000 35.000 - 61.080: 1235 ################ 61.080 - 106.053: 4207 ##################################################### 106.053 - 183.606: 1122 ############## 183.606 - 317.341: 111 # 317.341 - 547.959: 6 | 547.959 - 8370.000: 1 | Approach proposed by this patch: Count: 6682 Range: 6.000 - 135.000; Mean: 16.690; Median: 16.000; Stddev: 7.160 Percentiles: 90th: 23.000; 95th: 27.000; 99th: 40.000 6.000 - 8.418: 58 # 8.418 - 11.670: 1149 ######################### 11.670 - 16.046: 2418 ##################################################### 16.046 - 21.934: 2098 ############################################## 21.934 - 29.854: 744 ################ 29.854 - 40.511: 154 ### 40.511 - 54.848: 41 # 54.848 - 74.136: 5 | 74.136 - 100.087: 9 | 100.087 - 135.000: 6 | These samples were captured during a run of the btrfs tests 001, 002 and 004 in the xfstests, with a leaf/node size of 4Kb. Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik --- V2: Simplified code, removed unnecessary code. V3: Replaced BUG_ON() with the new ASSERT() from Josef. V4: Addressed latest comments from Zach Brown and Josef Bacik. Surrounded all code that is used for the assertion with a #ifdef CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT ... #endif block. Also changed offset arguments to be more strictly correct. V5: Updated histograms to reflect latest version of the code. V6: Use single assert macro and no more #ifdef CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT ... #endif logic, as suggested by Miao Xie. fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c index 5fa521b..5f38157 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c @@ -2426,6 +2426,37 @@ done: return ret; } +static int key_search_validate(struct extent_buffer *b, + struct btrfs_key *key, + int level) +{ + struct btrfs_disk_key disk_key; + unsigned long offset; + + btrfs_cpu_key_to_disk(&disk_key, key); + + if (level == 0) + offset = offsetof(struct btrfs_leaf, items[0].key); + else + offset = offsetof(struct btrfs_node, ptrs[0].key); + + return !memcmp_extent_buffer(b, &disk_key, offset, sizeof(disk_key)); +} + +static int key_search(struct extent_buffer *b, struct btrfs_key *key, + int level, int *prev_cmp, int *slot) +{ + if (*prev_cmp != 0) { + *prev_cmp = bin_search(b, key, level, slot); + return *prev_cmp; + } + + ASSERT(key_search_validate(b, key, level)); + *slot = 0; + + return 0; +} + /* * look for key in the tree. path is filled in with nodes along the way * if key is found, we return zero and you can find the item in the leaf @@ -2454,6 +2485,7 @@ int btrfs_search_slot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct btrfs_root int write_lock_level = 0; u8 lowest_level = 0; int min_write_lock_level; + int prev_cmp; lowest_level = p->lowest_level; WARN_ON(lowest_level && ins_len > 0); @@ -2484,6 +2516,7 @@ int btrfs_search_slot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct btrfs_root min_write_lock_level = write_lock_level; again: + prev_cmp = -1; /* * we try very hard to do read locks on the root */ @@ -2584,7 +2617,7 @@ cow_done: if (!cow) btrfs_unlock_up_safe(p, level + 1); - ret = bin_search(b, key, level, &slot); + ret = key_search(b, key, level, &prev_cmp, &slot); if (level != 0) { int dec = 0; @@ -2719,6 +2752,7 @@ int btrfs_search_old_slot(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_key *key, int level; int lowest_unlock = 1; u8 lowest_level = 0; + int prev_cmp; lowest_level = p->lowest_level; WARN_ON(p->nodes[0] != NULL); @@ -2729,6 +2763,7 @@ int btrfs_search_old_slot(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_key *key, } again: + prev_cmp = -1; b = get_old_root(root, time_seq); level = btrfs_header_level(b); p->locks[level] = BTRFS_READ_LOCK; @@ -2746,7 +2781,7 @@ again: */ btrfs_unlock_up_safe(p, level + 1); - ret = bin_search(b, key, level, &slot); + ret = key_search(b, key, level, &prev_cmp, &slot); if (level != 0) { int dec = 0; -- 1.7.9.5