Hi,
I'm not quite sure why you copied me in to this patch, but I've had a
look at it and it seems ok to me. Some of the other patches in this
series look as if they might be rather useful for the GFS2 dir readahead
code though, so I'll be keeping an eye on developments in this area,
Acked-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx>
Steve.
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 17:18 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> plain text document attachment (readahead-flags.patch)
> Introduce a readahead flags field and embed the existing mmap_miss in it
> (mainly to save space).
>
> It will be possible to lose the flags in race conditions, however the
> impact should be limited. For the race to happen, there must be two
> threads sharing the same file descriptor to be in page fault or
> readahead at the same time.
>
> Note that it has always been racy for "page faults" at the same time.
>
> And if ever the race happen, we'll lose one mmap_miss++ or mmap_miss--.
> Which may change some concrete readahead behavior, but won't really
> impact overall I/O performance.
>
> CC: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/fs.h | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> mm/filemap.c | 9 ++-------
> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-next.orig/include/linux/fs.h 2011-11-20 11:30:55.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/include/linux/fs.h 2011-11-20 11:48:53.000000000 +0800
> @@ -945,10 +945,39 @@ struct file_ra_state {
> there are only # of pages ahead */
>
> unsigned int ra_pages; /* Maximum readahead window */
> - unsigned int mmap_miss; /* Cache miss stat for mmap accesses */
> + unsigned int ra_flags;
> loff_t prev_pos; /* Cache last read() position */
> };
>
> +/* ra_flags bits */
> +#define READAHEAD_MMAP_MISS 0x000003ff /* cache misses for mmap access */
> +
> +/*
> + * Don't do ra_flags++ directly to avoid possible overflow:
> + * the ra fields can be accessed concurrently in a racy way.
> + */
> +static inline unsigned int ra_mmap_miss_inc(struct file_ra_state *ra)
> +{
> + unsigned int miss = ra->ra_flags & READAHEAD_MMAP_MISS;
> +
> + /* the upper bound avoids banging the cache line unnecessarily */
> + if (miss < READAHEAD_MMAP_MISS) {
> + miss++;
> + ra->ra_flags = miss | (ra->ra_flags & ~READAHEAD_MMAP_MISS);
> + }
> + return miss;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void ra_mmap_miss_dec(struct file_ra_state *ra)
> +{
> + unsigned int miss = ra->ra_flags & READAHEAD_MMAP_MISS;
> +
> + if (miss) {
> + miss--;
> + ra->ra_flags = miss | (ra->ra_flags & ~READAHEAD_MMAP_MISS);
> + }
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Check if @index falls in the readahead windows.
> */
> --- linux-next.orig/mm/filemap.c 2011-11-20 11:30:55.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/mm/filemap.c 2011-11-20 11:48:29.000000000 +0800
> @@ -1597,15 +1597,11 @@ static void do_sync_mmap_readahead(struc
> return;
> }
>
> - /* Avoid banging the cache line if not needed */
> - if (ra->mmap_miss < MMAP_LOTSAMISS * 10)
> - ra->mmap_miss++;
> -
> /*
> * Do we miss much more than hit in this file? If so,
> * stop bothering with read-ahead. It will only hurt.
> */
> - if (ra->mmap_miss > MMAP_LOTSAMISS)
> + if (ra_mmap_miss_inc(ra) > MMAP_LOTSAMISS)
> return;
>
> /*
> @@ -1633,8 +1629,7 @@ static void do_async_mmap_readahead(stru
> /* If we don't want any read-ahead, don't bother */
> if (VM_RandomReadHint(vma))
> return;
> - if (ra->mmap_miss > 0)
> - ra->mmap_miss--;
> + ra_mmap_miss_dec(ra);
> if (PageReadahead(page))
> page_cache_async_readahead(mapping, ra, file,
> page, offset, ra->ra_pages);
>
>
--
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
