linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Performance improvement for fanotify merge
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:56:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxiEuWaw1VKwJvp5V-_dN=MZNXWro4q8OnO8qhN-r7dLhA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210217112539.GC14758@quack2.suse.cz>

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 1:25 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On Wed 17-02-21 12:52:21, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:02 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Amir!
> > >
> > > Looking at the patches I've got one idea:
> > >
> > > Currently you have fsnotify_event like:
> > >
> > > struct fsnotify_event {
> > >         struct list_head list;
> > >         unsigned int key;
> > >         unsigned int next_bucket;
> > > };
> > >
> > > And 'list' is used for hashed queue list, next_bucket is used to simulate
> > > single queue out of all the individual lists. The option I'm considering
> > > is:
> > >
> > > struct fsnotify_event {
> > >         struct list_head list;
> > >         struct fsnotify_event *hash_next;
> > >         unsigned int key;
> > > };
> > >
> > > So 'list' would stay to be used for the single queue of events like it was
> > > before your patches. 'hash_next' would be used for list of events in the
> > > hash chain. The advantage of this scheme would be somewhat more obvious
> > > handling,
> >
> > I can agree to that.
> >
> > > also we can handle removal of permission events (they won't be
> > > hashed so there's no risk of breaking hash-chain in the middle, removal
> > > from global queue is easy as currently).
> >
> > Ok. but I do not really see a value in hashing non-permission events
> > for high priority groups, so this is not a strong argument.
>
> The reason why I thought it is somewhat beneficial is that someone might be
> using higher priority fanotify group just for watching non-permission
> events because so far the group priority makes little difference. And
> conceptually it isn't obvious (from userspace POV) why higher priority
> groups should be merging events less efficiently...
>

So I implemented your suggestion with ->next_event, but it did not
end up with being able to remove from the middle of the queue.
The thing is we know that permission events are on list #0, but what
we need to find out when removing a permission event is the previous
event in timeline order and we do not have that information.
So I stayed with hashed queue only for group priority 0.

Pushed partly tested result to fanotify_merge branch.

Will post after testing unless you have reservations.

Thanks,
Amir.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-18 13:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-02 16:20 [PATCH 0/7] Performance improvement for fanotify merge Amir Goldstein
2021-02-02 16:20 ` [PATCH 1/7] fsnotify: allow fsnotify_{peek,remove}_first_event with empty queue Amir Goldstein
2021-02-02 16:20 ` [PATCH 2/7] fsnotify: support hashed notification queue Amir Goldstein
2021-02-16 15:02   ` Jan Kara
2021-02-17 12:33     ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-17 13:48       ` Jan Kara
2021-02-17 15:42         ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-17 16:49           ` Jan Kara
2021-02-18 10:52           ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-02 16:20 ` [PATCH 3/7] fsnotify: read events from hashed notification queue by order of insertion Amir Goldstein
2021-02-16 15:10   ` Jan Kara
2021-02-02 16:20 ` [PATCH 4/7] fanotify: enable hashed notification queue for FAN_CLASS_NOTIF groups Amir Goldstein
2021-02-02 16:20 ` [PATCH 5/7] fanotify: limit number of event merge attempts Amir Goldstein
2021-02-27  8:31   ` Amir Goldstein
2021-03-01 13:08     ` Jan Kara
2021-03-01 13:58       ` Amir Goldstein
2021-09-15 12:39       ` Amir Goldstein
2021-09-15 16:33         ` Jan Kara
2021-02-02 16:20 ` [PATCH 6/7] fanotify: mix event info into merge key hash Amir Goldstein
2021-02-16 15:39   ` Jan Kara
2021-02-17 10:13     ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-18 10:46       ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-18 11:11         ` Jan Kara
2021-02-18 12:17           ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-02 16:20 ` [PATCH 7/7] fsnotify: print some debug stats on hashed queue overflow Amir Goldstein
2021-02-16 16:02 ` [PATCH 0/7] Performance improvement for fanotify merge Jan Kara
2021-02-17 10:52   ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-17 11:25     ` Jan Kara
2021-02-18 10:56       ` Amir Goldstein [this message]
2021-02-18 11:15         ` Jan Kara
2021-02-18 12:35           ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-19 10:15             ` Jan Kara
2021-02-19 10:21               ` Jan Kara
2021-02-19 13:38                 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-21 12:53                   ` Amir Goldstein
2021-02-22  9:29                     ` Jan Kara

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='CAOQ4uxiEuWaw1VKwJvp5V-_dN=MZNXWro4q8OnO8qhN-r7dLhA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@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).