On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:27 PM Ma, Yu <yu.ma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2. For fast path implementation, the essential and simple point is to
> directly return an available bit if there is free bit in [0-63]. I'd
> emphasize that it does not only improve low number of open fds (even it
> is the majority case on system as Honza agreed), but also improve the
> cases that lots of fds open/close frequently with short task (as per the
> algorithm, lower bits will be prioritized to allocate after being
> recycled). Not only blogbench, a synthetic benchmark, but also the
> realistic scenario as claimed in f3f86e33dc3d("vfs: Fix pathological
> performance case for __alloc_fd()"), which literally introduced this
> 2-levels bitmap searching algorithm to vfs as we see now.
I don't understand how using next_fd instead is supposed to be inferior.
Maybe I should clarify that by API contract the kernel must return the
lowest free fd it can find. To that end it maintains the next_fd field
as a hint to hopefully avoid some of the search work.
In the stock kernel the first thing done in alloc_fd is setting it as
a starting point:
fdt = files_fdtable(files);
fd = start;
if (fd < files->next_fd)
fd = files->next_fd;
that is all the calls which come here with 0 start their search from
next_fd position.
Suppose you implemented the patch as suggested by me and next_fd fits
the range of 0-63. Then you get the benefit of lower level bitmap
check just like in the patch you submitted, but without having to
first branch on whether you happen to be in that range.
Suppose next_fd is somewhere higher up, say 80. With your general
approach the optimization wont be done whatsoever or it will be
attempted at the 0-63 range when it is an invariant it finds no free
fds.
With what I'm suggesting the general idea of taking a peek at the
lower level bitmap can be applied across the entire fd space. Some
manual mucking will be needed to make sure this never pulls more than
one cacheline, easiest way out I see would be to align next_fd to
BITS_PER_LONG for the bitmap search purposes.
Outside of the scope of this patchset, but definitely worth
considering, is an observation that this still pulls an entire
cacheline worth of a bitmap (assuming it grew). If one could assume
that the size is always a multiply of 64 bytes (which it is after
first expansion) the 64 byte scan could be entirely inlined -- there
is quite a bit of fd fields in this range we may as well scan in hopes
of avoiding looking at the higher level bitmap, after all we already
paid for fetching it. This would take the optimization to its logical
conclusion.
Perhaps it would be ok to special-case the lower bitmap to start with
64 bytes so that there would be no need to branch on it.
