On Tue 02-09-14 17:59:30, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 07:18:30PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > When we discover written out buffer in transaction checkpoint list we
> > don't have to recheck validity of a transaction. Either this is the last
> > buffer in a transaction - and then we are done - or this isn't and then
> > we can just take another buffer from the checkpoint list without
> > dropping j_list_lock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> > index 993a187527f3..3722e2e53638 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c
> > @@ -343,12 +343,15 @@ restart:
> > if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> > if (unlikely(buffer_write_io_error(bh)) && !result)
> > result = -EIO;
> > - get_bh(bh);
> > BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "remove from checkpoint");
> > - __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
> > - spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> > - __brelse(bh);
>
> Currently, all of the places which call
> __jbd2_jouranl_remove_checkpoint(jh) are doing so with an elevated
> b_count. For example, see __try_to_free_cp_buf().
I did a bit of archeology and commit
932bb305ba2a01cd62809644d569f004e77a4355 removed the need to hold buffer
reference when calling __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(). So it should be
safe to remove that reference handling also from __try_to_free_cp_buf().
> After doing a lot of desk checking, I can't see any reason for holding
> the elevanted b_count, so I think it should be to remove it, but then
> we can simplify the other uses __try_to_free_cp_buf(). For example,
> in the loop that I folded from __wait_cp_io, we could drop the done
> variable and change:
>
> done = __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh);
> __brelse(bh);
>
> to this:
>
> __brelse(bh);
> if (__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh))
> break;
Well, we don't even need to grab bh reference unless we find the buffer
is locked and are going to wait for it. And yes, we can get rid of that
'done' variable.
> How much testing have you done of this optimization? I'm tempted to
> try nuking all of the elevated b_counts around the call to
> __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(), and then doing a test to see if
> anything blows up.
Honestly, I didn't test much but I'm pretty confident we are safe to
remove those bh refs ;)
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
