From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] btrfs: change how we calculate the nrptrs for btrfs_buffered_write()
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 15:59:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200824075959.85212-2-wqu@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200824075959.85212-1-wqu@suse.com>
@nrptrs of btrfs_bufferd_write() determines the up limit of pages we can
process in one batch.
Normally we want it to be as large as possible as btrfs metadata/data
reserve and release can cost quite a lot of time.
Commit 142349f541d0 ("btrfs: lower the dirty balance poll interval")
introduced two extra limitations which are suspicious now:
- limit the page number to nr_dirtied_pause - nr_dirtied
However I can't find any mainline fs nor iomap utilize these two
members.
Although page write back still uses those two members, as no other fs
utilizeing them at all, I doubt about the usefulness.
- ensure we always have 8 pages allocates
The 8 lower limit looks pretty strange, this means even we're just
writing 4K, we will allocate page* for 8 pages no matter what.
To me, this 8 pages look more like a upper limit.
This patch will change it by:
- Extract the calculation into another function
This allows us to add more comment explaining every calculation.
- Do proper page alignment calculation
The old calculation, DIV_ROUND_UP(iov_iter_count(i), PAGE_SIZE)
doesn't take @pos into consideration.
In fact we can easily have iov_iter_count(i) == 2, but still cross two
pages. (pos == page_offset() + PAGE_SIZE - 1).
- Remove the useless max(8)
- Use PAGE_SIZE independent up limit
Now we use 64K as nr_pages limit, so we should get similar performance
between different arches.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/file.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
index 5a818ebcb01f..c592350a5a82 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
@@ -1620,6 +1620,29 @@ void btrfs_check_nocow_unlock(struct btrfs_inode *inode)
btrfs_drew_write_unlock(&inode->root->snapshot_lock);
}
+/* Helper to get how many pages we should alloc for the batch */
+static int get_nr_pages(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, loff_t pos,
+ struct iov_iter *iov)
+{
+ int nr_pages;
+
+ /*
+ * Try to cover the full iov range, as btrfs metadata/data reserve
+ * and release can be pretty slow, thus the more pages we process in
+ * one batch the better.
+ */
+ nr_pages = (round_up(pos + iov_iter_count(iov), PAGE_SIZE) -
+ round_down(pos, PAGE_SIZE)) / PAGE_SIZE;
+
+ /*
+ * But still limit it to 64KiB, so we can still get a similar
+ * buffered write performance between different page sizes
+ */
+ nr_pages = min_t(int, nr_pages, SZ_64K / PAGE_SIZE);
+
+ return nr_pages;
+}
+
static noinline ssize_t btrfs_buffered_write(struct kiocb *iocb,
struct iov_iter *i)
{
@@ -1638,10 +1661,7 @@ static noinline ssize_t btrfs_buffered_write(struct kiocb *iocb,
bool only_release_metadata = false;
bool force_page_uptodate = false;
- nrptrs = min(DIV_ROUND_UP(iov_iter_count(i), PAGE_SIZE),
- PAGE_SIZE / (sizeof(struct page *)));
- nrptrs = min(nrptrs, current->nr_dirtied_pause - current->nr_dirtied);
- nrptrs = max(nrptrs, 8);
+ nrptrs = get_nr_pages(fs_info, pos, i);
pages = kmalloc_array(nrptrs, sizeof(struct page *), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!pages)
return -ENOMEM;
--
2.28.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-24 8:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-24 7:59 [PATCH v2 0/3] btrfs: basic refactor of btrfs_buffered_write() Qu Wenruo
2020-08-24 7:59 ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2020-08-24 10:32 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] btrfs: change how we calculate the nrptrs for btrfs_buffered_write() Nikolay Borisov
2020-08-24 16:59 ` Josef Bacik
2020-08-24 7:59 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] btrfs: refactor btrfs_buffered_write() into process_one_batch() Qu Wenruo
2020-08-24 17:01 ` Josef Bacik
2020-08-24 7:59 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] btrfs: remove the again: tag in process_one_batch() Qu Wenruo
2020-08-24 17:02 ` Josef Bacik
2020-08-26 11:20 ` David Sterba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200824075959.85212-2-wqu@suse.com \
--to=wqu@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).