From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A96DC433DB for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF67619F3 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231687AbhCXCIP (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:08:15 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:38156 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231237AbhCXCIM (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:08:12 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB96B619FB; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:08:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1616551691; bh=5RrpgDTSFEcTmdL7hnSP0wuQudQnSBWs15uXi1XO53A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jyYf1RYWO3E0rn59fXR8eGUBULRNN1Is/HUjqIyNkXF03gf2iKLRmZfJI9FaTeZ7D GXLrJKl9jVa0uqaKad/OIRM9qsiyCAyqyHzBQHC2WXJ3TmXahyS/0WbcNLZ/HIPPb4 AhZ7R181f388AUmevGB0ur7LaKChq7bjrVswWiE14ncX6QcLTjXgN0isJBxxq138l6 6ztsAsPbcDgDqw8SyYkjSfv7CwM6Jns+BPu9g5KLHoOCZdZ+sBAoIQPr8wtgEO5fCx cgzwnZ3VBj5Z2XqwaYeh5pNKi6PAA7GqlVIHSmyZC4ytCTdxdmiiSUMmV5h7VRL7gV 5+uhAUPw8OZIA== Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:08:10 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Gao Xiang Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] repair: Phase 6 performance improvements Message-ID: <20210324020810.GP22100@magnolia> References: <20210319013355.776008-1-david@fromorbit.com> <20210319013845.GA1431129@xiangao.remote.csb> <20210319182221.GU22100@magnolia> <20210320020931.GA1608555@xiangao.remote.csb> <20210324012655.GA2245176@xiangao.remote.csb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210324012655.GA2245176@xiangao.remote.csb> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:26:55AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Dave and Darrick, > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:09:31AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:22:21AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 09:38:45AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:33:48PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > This is largely a repost of my current code so that Xiang can take > > > > > over and finish it off. It applies against 5.11.0 and the > > > > > performance numbers are still valid. I can't remember how much of > > > > > the review comments I addressed from the first time I posted it, so > > > > > the changelog is poor.... > > > > > > > > Yeah, I will catch what's missing (now looking the previous review), > > > > and follow up then... > > > > > > :) > > > > > > While you're revising the patches, you might as well convert: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong > > > > > > into: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong > > > > > > because Exchange is so awful for inline replies that I don't use that > > > email address anymore. > > > > Yeah, I'm just starting sorting out all previous opinions > > and patches diff. Will update in the next version. > > > > Sorry for bothering... After reading the previous discussion for a while, > I'm fine with the trivial cleanups. Yet, it seems that there are mainly 2 > remaining open discussions unsolved yet... > > 1 is magic number 1000, > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201029172045.GP1061252@magnolia > > while I also don't have better ideas of this (and have no idea why queue > depth 1000 is optimal compared with other configurations), so it'd be better > to get your thoughts about this in advance (e.g. just leave it as-is, or... > plus, I don't have such test setting with such many cpus) > > 2 is the hash size modificiation, > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201029162922.GM1061252@magnolia/ > > it seems previously hash entires are limited to 64k, and this patch relaxes > such limitation, but for huge directories I'm not sure the hash table > utilization but from the previous commit message it seems the extra memory > usage can be ignored. > > Anyway, I'm fine with just leave them as-is if agreed on these. FWIW I didn't have any specific objections to either magic number, I simply wanted to know where they came from and why. :) --D > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > > > Thanks, > > Gao Xiang > > > > > > > > --D > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gao Xiang > > > > > > > >