[PATCH] jbd2: Optimize jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() a bit

[PATCH] jbd2: Optimize jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() a bit

[Jan Kara]

When we discover written out buffer in transaction checkpoint list we
don't have to recheck validity of a transaction. Either this is the last
buffer in a transaction - and then we are done - or this isn't and then
we can just take another buffer from the checkpoint list without
dropping j_list_lock.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
 fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 13 ++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
index 993a187527f3..3722e2e53638 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
@@ -343,12 +343,15 @@ restart:
 		if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) {
 			if (unlikely(buffer_write_io_error(bh)) && !result)
 				result = -EIO;
-			get_bh(bh);
 			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove from checkpoint");
-			__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
-			spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-			__brelse(bh);
-			goto retry;
+			if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh)) {
+				/*
+				 * This was the last buffer attached to the
+				 * transaction. We are done.
+				 */
+				goto out;
+			}
+			continue;
 		}
 		/*
 		 * Important: we are about to write the buffer, and
-- 
1.8.1.4

Re: [PATCH] jbd2: Optimize jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() a bit

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> When we discover written out buffer in transaction checkpoint list we
> don't have to recheck validity of a transaction. Either this is the last
> buffer in a transaction - and then we are done - or this isn't and then
> we can just take another buffer from the checkpoint list without
> dropping j_list_lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> ---
>  fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> index 993a187527f3..3722e2e53638 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> @@ -343,12 +343,15 @@ restart:
>  		if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) {
>  			if (unlikely(buffer_write_io_error(bh)) && !result)
>  				result = -EIO;
> -			get_bh(bh);
>  			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove from checkpoint");
> -			__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
> -			spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> -			__brelse(bh);

Currently, all of the places which call
__jbd2_jouranl_remove_checkpoint(jh) are doing so with an elevated
b_count.  For example, see __try_to_free_cp_buf().

After doing a lot of desk checking, I can't see any reason for holding
the elevanted b_count, so I think it should be to remove it, but then
we can simplify the other uses __try_to_free_cp_buf().  For example,
in the loop that I folded from __wait_cp_io, we could drop the done
variable and change:

		done = __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
		__brelse(bh);

to this:

		__brelse(bh);
		if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh))
			break;

How much testing have you done of this optimization?  I'm tempted to
try nuking all of the elevated b_counts around the call to
__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(), and then doing a test to see if
anything blows up.

Cheers,

					- Ted

[PATCH 1/2] jbd2: don't call get_bh() before calling __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint()

[Theodore Ts'o]

The __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint() doesn't require an elevated
b_count; indeed, until the jh structure gets released by the call to
jbd2_journal_put_journal_head(), the bh's b_count is elevated by
virtue of the existence of the jh structure.

Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
---
 fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 12 ++++--------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
index 22fcd50..cb6e17c 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
@@ -100,11 +100,8 @@ static int __try_to_free_cp_buf(struct journal_head *jh)
 		 * Get our reference so that bh cannot be freed before
 		 * we unlock it
 		 */
-		get_bh(bh);
 		JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "remove from checkpoint list");
 		ret = __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh) + 1;
-		BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "release");
-		__brelse(bh);
 	}
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -216,7 +213,7 @@ int jbd2_log_do_checkpoint(journal_t *journal)
 	struct buffer_head	*bh;
 	transaction_t		*transaction;
 	tid_t			this_tid;
-	int			result, batch_count = 0, done = 0;
+	int			result, batch_count = 0;
 
 	jbd_debug(1, "Start checkpoint\n");
 
@@ -291,11 +288,9 @@ restart:
 		if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) {
 			if (unlikely(buffer_write_io_error(bh)) && !result)
 				result = -EIO;
-			get_bh(bh);
 			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove from checkpoint");
 			__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
 			spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-			__brelse(bh);
 			goto retry;
 		}
 		/*
@@ -338,7 +333,7 @@ restart2:
 	    transaction->t_tid != this_tid)
 		goto out;
 
-	while (!done && transaction->t_checkpoint_io_list) {
+	while (transaction->t_checkpoint_io_list) {
 		jh = transaction->t_checkpoint_io_list;
 		bh = jh2bh(jh);
 		get_bh(bh);
@@ -359,8 +354,9 @@ restart2:
 		 * know that it has been written out and so we can
 		 * drop it from the list
 		 */
-		done = __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
 		__brelse(bh);
+		if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh))
+			break;
 	}
 out:
 	spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-- 
2.1.0

[PATCH 2/2] jbd2: optimize jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() a bit

[Theodore Ts'o]

From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

When we discover written out buffer in transaction checkpoint list we
don't have to recheck validity of a transaction. Either this is the
last buffer in a transaction - and then we are done - or this isn't
and then we can just take another buffer from the checkpoint list
without dropping j_list_lock.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
---
 fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
index cb6e17c..7713f94 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
@@ -289,9 +289,10 @@ restart:
 			if (unlikely(buffer_write_io_error(bh)) && !result)
 				result = -EIO;
 			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove from checkpoint");
-			__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
-			spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-			goto retry;
+			if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh))
+				/* The transaction was released; we're done */
+				goto out;
+			continue;
 		}
 		/*
 		 * Important: we are about to write the buffer, and
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] jbd2: don't call get_bh() before calling __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint()

[Yuanhan Liu]

<resend due to malformed email>

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> The __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint() doesn't require an elevated
> b_count; indeed, until the jh structure gets released by the call to
> jbd2_journal_put_journal_head(), the bh's b_count is elevated by
> virtue of the existence of the jh structure.
>
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> ---
>  fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 12 ++++--------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> index 22fcd50..cb6e17c 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> @@ -100,11 +100,8 @@ static int __try_to_free_cp_buf(struct journal_head *jh)
>                  * Get our reference so that bh cannot be freed before
>                  * we unlock it
>                  */

I guess you need drop those comments as well.

        --yliu
> -               get_bh(bh);
>                 JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "remove from checkpoint list");
>                 ret = __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh) + 1;
> -               BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "release");
> -               __brelse(bh);
>         }
>         return ret;

Re: [PATCH 1/2] jbd2: don't call get_bh() before calling __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint()

[Jan Kara]

On Tue 02-09-14 18:46:39, Ted Tso wrote:
> The __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint() doesn't require an elevated
> b_count; indeed, until the jh structure gets released by the call to
> jbd2_journal_put_journal_head(), the bh's b_count is elevated by
> virtue of the existence of the jh structure.
> 
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
  Looks good so you can add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

  Just we can do a bit more as I mentioned in my other email:

> @@ -359,8 +354,9 @@ restart2:
>  		 * know that it has been written out and so we can
>  		 * drop it from the list
>  		 */
> -		done = __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
>  		__brelse(bh);
  Here we don't need to grab bh reference unless we are going to call
wait_on_buffer(). Which moves get_bh / __brelse out of fast path.

> +		if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh))
> +			break;
>  	}
>  out:
>  	spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

[PATCH -v2] jbd2: don't call get_bh() before calling __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint()

[Theodore Ts'o]

The __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint() doesn't require an elevated
b_count; indeed, until the jh structure gets released by the call to
jbd2_journal_put_journal_head(), the bh's b_count is elevated by
virtue of the existence of the jh structure.

Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
---
 fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 19 +++++--------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
index 18c7a8d..90d6091 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
@@ -96,15 +96,8 @@ static int __try_to_free_cp_buf(struct journal_head *jh)
 
 	if (jh->b_transaction == NULL && !buffer_locked(bh) &&
 	    !buffer_dirty(bh) && !buffer_write_io_error(bh)) {
-		/*
-		 * Get our reference so that bh cannot be freed before
-		 * we unlock it
-		 */
-		get_bh(bh);
 		JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "remove from checkpoint list");
 		ret = __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh) + 1;
-		BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "release");
-		__brelse(bh);
 	}
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -216,7 +209,7 @@ int jbd2_log_do_checkpoint(journal_t *journal)
 	struct buffer_head	*bh;
 	transaction_t		*transaction;
 	tid_t			this_tid;
-	int			result, batch_count = 0, done = 0;
+	int			result, batch_count = 0;
 
 	jbd_debug(1, "Start checkpoint\n");
 
@@ -291,11 +284,9 @@ restart:
 		if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) {
 			if (unlikely(buffer_write_io_error(bh)) && !result)
 				result = -EIO;
-			get_bh(bh);
 			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove from checkpoint");
 			__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
 			spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-			__brelse(bh);
 			goto retry;
 		}
 		/*
@@ -338,12 +329,12 @@ restart2:
 	    transaction->t_tid != this_tid)
 		goto out;
 
-	while (!done && transaction->t_checkpoint_io_list) {
+	while (transaction->t_checkpoint_io_list) {
 		jh = transaction->t_checkpoint_io_list;
 		bh = jh2bh(jh);
-		get_bh(bh);
 		if (buffer_locked(bh)) {
 			spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+			get_bh(bh);
 			wait_on_buffer(bh);
 			/* the journal_head may have gone by now */
 			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "brelse");
@@ -359,8 +350,8 @@ restart2:
 		 * know that it has been written out and so we can
 		 * drop it from the list
 		 */
-		done = __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
-		__brelse(bh);
+		if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh))
+			break;
 	}
 out:
 	spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] jbd2: don't call get_bh() before calling __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint()

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:48:56PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >                  * Get our reference so that bh cannot be freed before
> >                  * we unlock it
> >                  */
> 
> I guess you need remove those comments as well.

Good catch, thanks.

					- Ted

Re: [PATCH] jbd2: Optimize jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() a bit

[Jan Kara]

On Tue 02-09-14 17:59:30, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > When we discover written out buffer in transaction checkpoint list we
> > don't have to recheck validity of a transaction. Either this is the last
> > buffer in a transaction - and then we are done - or this isn't and then
> > we can just take another buffer from the checkpoint list without
> > dropping j_list_lock.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > ---
> >  fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> > index 993a187527f3..3722e2e53638 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> > @@ -343,12 +343,15 @@ restart:
> >  		if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> >  			if (unlikely(buffer_write_io_error(bh)) && !result)
> >  				result = -EIO;
> > -			get_bh(bh);
> >  			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove from checkpoint");
> > -			__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
> > -			spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> > -			__brelse(bh);
> 
> Currently, all of the places which call
> __jbd2_jouranl_remove_checkpoint(jh) are doing so with an elevated
> b_count.  For example, see __try_to_free_cp_buf().
  I did a bit of archeology and commit
932bb305ba2a01cd62809644d569f004e77a4355 removed the need to hold buffer
reference when calling __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(). So it should be
safe to remove that reference handling also from __try_to_free_cp_buf().

> After doing a lot of desk checking, I can't see any reason for holding
> the elevanted b_count, so I think it should be to remove it, but then
> we can simplify the other uses __try_to_free_cp_buf().  For example,
> in the loop that I folded from __wait_cp_io, we could drop the done
> variable and change:
> 
> 		done = __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
> 		__brelse(bh);
> 
> to this:
> 
> 		__brelse(bh);
> 		if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh))
> 			break;
  Well, we don't even need to grab bh reference unless we find the buffer
is locked and are going to wait for it. And yes, we can get rid of that
'done' variable.

> How much testing have you done of this optimization?  I'm tempted to
> try nuking all of the elevated b_counts around the call to
> __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(), and then doing a test to see if
> anything blows up.
  Honestly, I didn't test much but I'm pretty confident we are safe to
remove those bh refs ;)

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

[PATCH 0/2 v2] Fix data corruption when blocksize < pagesize for mmapped data

[Jan Kara]

  Hello,

  this is a second version of the patches to fix data corruption in mmapped
data when blocksize < pagesize as tested by xfstests generic/030 test.
The patchset fixes XFS and ext4. I've checked and btrfs doesn't need fixing
because it doesn't support blocksize < pagesize. If that's ever going
to change btrfs will likely need a similar treatment. ocfs2, ext2, ext3 are
OK since they happily allocate blocks during writeback. For other filesystems
like gfs2, ubifs, nilfs, ceph,... I'm not sure whether they support blocksize <
pagesize at all. Interesting is also NFS which may care but I don't understand
its ->page_mkwrite() handler good enough to judge.

Changes since v1:
- changed helper function name and moved it to mm/truncate.c - I originally
  thought we can make the helper function update i_size to simplify the
  interface but it's actually impossible due to generic_write_end() lock
  ordering constraints.
- used round_up() instead of ALIGN()
- taught truncate_setsize() to use the helper function

								Honza

[PATCH] jbd2: Optimize jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() a bit

[Jan Kara]

When we discover written out buffer in transaction checkpoint list we
don't have to recheck validity of a transaction. Either this is the last
buffer in a transaction - and then we are done - or this isn't and then
we can just take another buffer from the checkpoint list without
dropping j_list_lock.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
 fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 13 ++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
index 993a187527f3..3722e2e53638 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
@@ -343,12 +343,15 @@ restart:
 		if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) {
 			if (unlikely(buffer_write_io_error(bh)) && !result)
 				result = -EIO;
-			get_bh(bh);
 			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove from checkpoint");
-			__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
-			spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-			__brelse(bh);
-			goto retry;
+			if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh)) {
+				/*
+				 * This was the last buffer attached to the
+				 * transaction. We are done.
+				 */
+				goto out;
+			}
+			continue;
 		}
 		/*
 		 * Important: we are about to write the buffer, and
-- 
1.8.1.4

[PATCH] jbd2: Optimize jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() a bit

[Jan Kara]

When we discover written out buffer in transaction checkpoint list we
don't have to recheck validity of a transaction. Either this is the last
buffer in a transaction - and then we are done - or this isn't and then
we can just take another buffer from the checkpoint list without
dropping j_list_lock.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
 fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 13 ++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
index 993a187527f3..3722e2e53638 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
@@ -343,12 +343,15 @@ restart:
 		if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) {
 			if (unlikely(buffer_write_io_error(bh)) && !result)
 				result = -EIO;
-			get_bh(bh);
 			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove from checkpoint");
-			__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
-			spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
-			__brelse(bh);
-			goto retry;
+			if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh)) {
+				/*
+				 * This was the last buffer attached to the
+				 * transaction. We are done.
+				 */
+				goto out;
+			}
+			continue;
 		}
 		/*
 		 * Important: we are about to write the buffer, and
-- 
1.8.1.4

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs