Liu Bo
2013-Mar-11 09:20 UTC
[PATCH] Btrfs: get better concurrency for snapshot-aware defrag work
Using spinning case instead of blocking will result in better concurrency
overall.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 13ab4de..1f268888 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -2312,6 +2312,7 @@ again:
key.type = BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY;
key.offset = start;
+ path->leave_spinning = 1;
if (merge) {
struct btrfs_file_extent_item *fi;
u64 extent_len;
@@ -2368,6 +2369,7 @@ again:
btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty(leaf);
inode_add_bytes(inode, len);
+ btrfs_release_path(path);
ret = btrfs_inc_extent_ref(trans, root, new->bytenr,
new->disk_len, 0,
@@ -2381,6 +2383,7 @@ again:
ret = 1;
out_free_path:
btrfs_release_path(path);
+ path->leave_spinning = 0;
btrfs_end_transaction(trans, root);
out_unlock:
unlock_extent_cached(&BTRFS_I(inode)->io_tree, lock_start, lock_end,
--
1.7.7.6
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
David Sterba
2013-Mar-11 17:26 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: get better concurrency for snapshot-aware defrag work
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:20:58PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:> Using spinning case instead of blocking will result in better concurrency > overall.Do you have numbers to support that? david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Liu Bo
2013-Mar-12 01:44 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: get better concurrency for snapshot-aware defrag work
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 06:26:40PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:20:58PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > Using spinning case instead of blocking will result in better concurrency > > overall. > > Do you have numbers to support that? >Sorry, I don''t, just judging from what leave_spinning is desiged for and the similar usecases, like insert_reserved_file_extents(), which is also involved in endio write worker. thanks, liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Chris Mason
2013-Mar-14 18:38 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: get better concurrency for snapshot-aware defrag work
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:44:04PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 06:26:40PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:20:58PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > > Using spinning case instead of blocking will result in better concurrency > > > overall. > > > > Do you have numbers to support that? > > > > Sorry, I don''t, just judging from what leave_spinning is desiged for and the > similar usecases, like insert_reserved_file_extents(), which is also involved in > endio write worker.Leaving the path spinning is always faster. As long as you''re sure the code inside doesn''t schedule it is the right choice. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Liu Bo
2013-Mar-15 01:39 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: get better concurrency for snapshot-aware defrag work
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:38:29PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:44:04PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 06:26:40PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:20:58PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > > > Using spinning case instead of blocking will result in better concurrency > > > > overall. > > > > > > Do you have numbers to support that? > > > > > > > Sorry, I don''t, just judging from what leave_spinning is desiged for and the > > similar usecases, like insert_reserved_file_extents(), which is also involved in > > endio write worker. > > Leaving the path spinning is always faster. As long as you''re sure the > code inside doesn''t schedule it is the right choice. >Yeah, I''ve taken care of schedule thing :) thanks, liubo>-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html