On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:07:54 -0500
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When given a range to write with unstable writes, the current code
> always does a COMMIT of the entire file afterward. This is potentially
> expensive on some servers and unnecessary. Instead, just do a COMMIT for
> the offset and count that was written.
>
> Khoa, who reported this bug, stated that this made a big difference in
> performance in their environment, which I believe involves GPFS on the
> server. He didn't pass along any hard numbers so I can't quantify the
> gain, but it stands to reason that clustered filesystems might suffer
> more contention issues when issuing a commit over the whole file.
>
> Reported-by: Khoa Huynh <khoa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/direct.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/direct.c b/fs/nfs/direct.c
> index 1940f1a..33f2be7 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/direct.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/direct.c
> @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct nfs_direct_req {
> /* completion state */
> atomic_t io_count; /* i/os we're waiting for */
> spinlock_t lock; /* protect completion state */
> + loff_t pos; /* offset into file */
> ssize_t count, /* bytes actually processed */
> error; /* any reported error */
> struct completion completion; /* wait for i/o completion */
> @@ -584,8 +585,8 @@ static void nfs_direct_commit_schedule(struct nfs_direct_req *dreq)
> data->cred = msg.rpc_cred;
>
> data->args.fh = NFS_FH(data->inode);
> - data->args.offset = 0;
> - data->args.count = 0;
> + data->args.offset = dreq->pos;
> + data->args.count = dreq->count;
> data->args.context = dreq->ctx;
> data->args.lock_context = dreq->l_ctx;
> data->res.count = 0;
> @@ -877,6 +878,7 @@ static ssize_t nfs_direct_write(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
> sync = NFS_FILE_SYNC;
>
> dreq->inode = inode;
> + dreq->pos = pos;
> dreq->ctx = get_nfs_open_context(nfs_file_open_context(iocb->ki_filp));
> dreq->l_ctx = nfs_get_lock_context(dreq->ctx);
> if (dreq->l_ctx == NULL)
Khoa found that he made a mistake when testing this originally, and any
benefit that the patch provides seems to be negligible. I still think
it's safe and reasonable to only issue a commit for the range that was
written, but there doesn't seem to be any compelling need for this
patch right now.
Trond, do you have an opinion here? Should we go ahead and commit this
patch or something like it, or leave well-enough alone?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
