Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs: reverse search directory freespace indexes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:23:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 04:30:42PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > 		create time(sec) / rate (files/s)
> >  File count     vanilla             Prev commit		Patched
> >   10k	      0.41 / 24.3k	   0.42 / 23.8k       0.41 / 24.3k
> >   20k	      0.74 / 27.0k	   0.76 / 26.3k       0.75 / 26.7k
> >  100k	      3.81 / 26.4k	   3.47 / 28.8k       3.27 / 30.6k
> >  200k	      8.58 / 23.3k	   7.19 / 27.8k       6.71 / 29.8k
> >    1M	     85.69 / 11.7k	  48.53 / 20.6k      37.67 / 26.5k
> >    2M	    280.31 /  7.1k	 130.14 / 15.3k      79.55 / 25.2k
> >   10M	   3913.26 /  2.5k                          552.89 / 18.1k
> 
> Impressive!

Yeah, i think the  drop-off in performance at 10M inodes is caused
by running out of RAM at about 6M inodes, and so there's extra CPU
time spent in direct memory reclaim after than so the single
threaded create performance is lower from as a result.

> > Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> FYI, the Off here should be all lower case.  Patch 2 actually has the
> same issue, but I only noticed it here.

Yeah, 3 of 5 patches are like that. No idea how - I use macros for
all these sobs and rvbs and they all use lower case....

> > @@ -1781,6 +1782,9 @@ xfs_dir2_node_find_freeblk(
> >  		 */
> >  		ifbno = fblk->blkno;
> >  		fbno = ifbno;
> > +		xfs_trans_brelse(tp, fbp);
> > +		fbp = NULL;
> > +		fblk->bp = NULL;
> 
> Hmm.  Doesn't this actually belong into the previous patch?

Yup, I'll move them.

-Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux