On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:28:05PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le jeudi 30 septembre 2010 à 09:45 -0700, Andrew Morton a écrit :
>
> > Could eliminate `p' I guess, but that would involve using
> > __get_cpu_var() as an lval, which looks vile and might generate worse
> > code.
> >
>
> Hmm, I see, please check this new patch, using the most modern stuff ;)
>
> > Readers of this code won't know why last_ino_get() was marked noinline.
> > It looks wrong, really.
>
> Oops sorry, this was a temporary hack of mine to ease disassembly
> analysis. Good catch !
>
> Here is the new generated code on i686 (with the noinline) :
> pretty good ;)
>
> c02e5930 <last_ino_get>:
> c02e5930: 55 push %ebp
> c02e5931: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
> c02e5933: 64 a1 44 29 7d c0 mov %fs:0xc07d2944,%eax
> c02e5939: a9 ff 03 00 00 test $0x3ff,%eax
> c02e593e: 74 09 je c02e5949 <last_ino_get+0x19>
> c02e5940: 40 inc %eax
> c02e5941: 64 a3 44 29 7d c0 mov %eax,%fs:0xc07d2944
> c02e5947: c9 leave
> c02e5948: c3 ret
> c02e5949: b8 00 04 00 00 mov $0x400,%eax
> c02e594e: f0 0f c1 05 80 c8 92 c0 lock xadd %eax,0xc092c880
> c02e5956: eb e8 jmp c02e5940 <last_ino_get+0x10>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> [PATCH] fs: inode per-cpu last_ino allocator
Thanks Eric, this looks good. You didn't seem to add a comment about
preempt safety that Andrew wanted, but I'll add it.
>
> new_inode() dirties a contended cache line to get increasing
> inode numbers.
>
> Solve this problem by providing to each cpu a per_cpu variable,
> feeded by the shared last_ino, but once every 1024 allocations.
> This reduces contention on the shared last_ino, and give same
> spreading ino numbers than before (i.e. same wraparound after 2^32
> allocations).
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/inode.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index 8646433..5c233f0 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -624,6 +624,45 @@ void inode_add_to_lists(struct super_block *sb, struct inode *inode)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(inode_add_to_lists);
>
> +#define LAST_INO_BATCH 1024
> +
> +/*
> + * Each cpu owns a range of LAST_INO_BATCH numbers.
> + * 'shared_last_ino' is dirtied only once out of LAST_INO_BATCH allocations,
> + * to renew the exhausted range.
> + *
> + * This does not significantly increase overflow rate because every CPU can
> + * consume at most LAST_INO_BATCH-1 unused inode numbers. So there is
> + * NR_CPUS*(LAST_INO_BATCH-1) wastage. At 4096 and 1024, this is ~0.1% of the
> + * 2^32 range, and is a worst-case. Even a 50% wastage would only increase
> + * overflow rate by 2x, which does not seem too significant.
> + *
> + * On a 32bit, non LFS stat() call, glibc will generate an EOVERFLOW
> + * error if st_ino won't fit in target struct field. Use 32bit counter
> + * here to attempt to avoid that.
> + */
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, last_ino);
> +
> +static unsigned int last_ino_get(void)
> +{
> + unsigned int res;
> +
> + get_cpu();
> + res = __this_cpu_read(last_ino);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + if (unlikely((res & (LAST_INO_BATCH - 1)) == 0)) {
> + static atomic_t shared_last_ino;
> + int next = atomic_add_return(LAST_INO_BATCH, &shared_last_ino);
> +
> + res = next - LAST_INO_BATCH;
> + }
> +#endif
> + res++;
> + __this_cpu_write(last_ino, res);
> + put_cpu();
> + return res;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * new_inode - obtain an inode
> * @sb: superblock
> @@ -638,12 +677,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(inode_add_to_lists);
> */
> struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> - /*
> - * On a 32bit, non LFS stat() call, glibc will generate an EOVERFLOW
> - * error if st_ino won't fit in target struct field. Use 32bit counter
> - * here to attempt to avoid that.
> - */
> - static unsigned int last_ino;
> struct inode *inode;
>
> spin_lock_prefetch(&inode_lock);
> @@ -652,7 +685,7 @@ struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> if (inode) {
> spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> __inode_add_to_lists(sb, NULL, inode);
> - inode->i_ino = ++last_ino;
> + inode->i_ino = last_ino_get();
> inode->i_state = 0;
> spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> }
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
