From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37074 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754013AbdJIOQZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:16:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] lib/dlock-list: Enable faster lookup with hashing To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , Jeff Layton , "J. Bruce Fields" , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Andi Kleen , Dave Chinner , Boqun Feng References: <1507229008-20569-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <1507229008-20569-6-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20171009130827.GC5131@linux-80c1.suse> From: Waiman Long Message-ID: <95cbbab7-246d-fd42-23e3-19aa5bd8efe5@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:16:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171009130827.GC5131@linux-80c1.suse> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/09/2017 09:08 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Thu, 05 Oct 2017, Waiman Long wrote: > >> Insertion and deletion is relatively cheap and mostly contention >> free for dlock-list. Lookup, on the other hand, can be rather costly >> because all the lists in a dlock-list will have to be iterated. >> >> Currently dlock-list insertion is based on the cpu that the task is >> running on. So a given object can be inserted into any one of the >> lists depending on what the current cpu is. >> >> This patch provides an alternative way of list selection. The caller >> can provide a object context which will be hashed to one of the list >> in a dlock-list. The object can then be added into that particular >> list. Lookup can be done by iterating elements in the provided list >> only instead of all the lists in a dlock-list. > > Unless I'm misusing the api, I could not find a standard way of > iterating a _particular_ list head (the one the dlock_list_hash() > returned). This is because iterators always want the all the heads. > > Also, in my particular epoll case I'd need the head->lock _not_ to > be dropped after the iteration, and therefore is pretty adhoc. > Currently we do: > > dlist_for_each_entry() { > // acquire head->lock for each list > } > // no locks held > dlist_add() > > I'm thinking perhaps we could have dlist_check_add() which passes a > callback to ensure we want to add the node. The function could acquire > the head->lock and not release it until the very end. With the dlock_list_hash(), dlock-list is degenerated into a pool of list where one is chosen by hashing. So the regular list iteration macros like list_for_each_entry() can then be used. Of course, you have to explicitly do the lock and unlock operation. I could also encapsulate it a bit with inlined function like dlock_list_single_iter_init(iter, dlist, head, flags) It could set up the iterator properly to iterate only 1 list. The flags can be to indicate holding the lock after iteration. In this case, dlock_list_unlock(iter) will have to be called to do the unlock. I could add a patch to do that if you prefer that route. Cheers, Longman