linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: kuznet@virtuozzo.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fuse: Use hash table to link processing request
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:35:23 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <00ffd41c-b28c-466a-c496-546ce57d7990@virtuozzo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegt3ckxAUAdabXKwxgFYdP9=wVSis+G3pztWgqzXVGNFSA@mail.gmail.com>

On 25.09.2018 12:08, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>> We noticed the performance bottle neck in FUSE running our
>> Virtuozzo storage over rdma. On some types of workload
>> we observe 20% of times pent in request_find() in profiler.
>> This function is iterating over long requests list, and it
>> scales bad.
>>
>> The patch introduces hash table to reduce the number
>> of iterations, we do in this function. Hash generating
>> algorithm is taken from hash_add() function, while
>> 512 lines table is used to store pending requests.
>> This fixes problem and improves the performance.
> 
> Pushed to fuse.git#for-next with a number of small changes.   E.g. I

Thanks!

> reduced the number of cachlines to 256 to make the hashtable size just
> 4k.   Was there a scientific reason for choosing 512 as the optimal
> number of cache lines?

I just tried to choose a size, which is not small for all of potential
users. But, it looks like 256 should be also enough. 
So, there was no hidden mathematics...

Kirill

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-25 15:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-11 10:11 [PATCH 0/3] fuse: Solve request_find() bottleneck Kirill Tkhai
2018-09-11 10:11 ` [PATCH 1/3] fuse: Change interrupt requests allocation algorhythm Kirill Tkhai
2018-09-11 10:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] fuse: Kill fuse_req::intr_unique Kirill Tkhai
2018-09-11 10:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] fuse: Use hash table to link processing request Kirill Tkhai
2018-09-25  9:08   ` Miklos Szeredi
2018-09-25  9:35     ` Kirill Tkhai [this message]
2018-09-24 12:08 ` [PATCH 0/3] fuse: Solve request_find() bottleneck Kirill Tkhai
2018-09-24 15:04   ` Miklos Szeredi

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=00ffd41c-b28c-466a-c496-546ce57d7990@virtuozzo.com \
    --to=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=kuznet@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    /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).