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

Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 2/2] virtio-fs: do not removemapping if dmap will be used immediately



Hi Bo,

On 2019/8/13 2:32, Liu Bo wrote:
> According to how we implement REMOVEMAPPING in daemon, it's unnecessary to
> involve a REMOVEMAPPING to reuse a dmap when doing inline reclaim because
> dmaps got from inline reclaim get reused for another mapping without being
> added back to 'free' dmap pool.
> 
> This skips REMOVEMAPPING for inline reclaim only and we don't do
> REMOVEMAPPING unless someone has raced in to add a dmap to the range.
> 
> With the following two patches applied,
> "virtio-fs: do not removemapping if dmap will be used immediately"
> "virtio-fs: try hard to do inline reclaim",
> 
> fio fio-tmp.job
> read: IOPS=8055, BW=31.5MiB/s (32.0MB/s)(3776MiB/120001msec)

Do you mean the before result is 31.5MB/s and after is 32MB/s? I wonder
what is your backend storage?

Jun

> clat (usec): min=6, max=1842, avg=113.75, stdev=83.78
> clat percentiles (usec):
> 95.00th=[  202]
> 99.00th=[  221]
> 
> w/o
> read: IOPS=4312, BW=16.8MiB/s (17.7MB/s)(2021MiB/120001msec)
> clat (usec): min=10, max=3415, avg=220.98, stdev=102.85
> clat percentiles (usec):
> 95.00th=[  359]
> 99.00th=[  392]
> 
> [1]:
> virtiofsd -o cache="always"
> qemu -device vhost-user-fs-pci,queue-size=1024,chardev=char0,tag=myfs-1,cache-size=4G
> 
> [2]:
> cat fio-tmp.job
> 
> ; fio-rand-read.job for fiotest
> 
> [global]
> name=fio-rand-read
> filename=fio_file
> rw=randread
> bs=4K
> direct=1
> numjobs=1
> time_based=1
> runtime=120
> directory=/mnt/test/
> 
> [file1]
> size=10G
> ioengine=psync
> iodepth=1
> 
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo liu linux alibaba com>
> ---
>  fs/fuse/file.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> index 2ea670a..b5239b1 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -1933,7 +1933,11 @@ static int iomap_begin_setup_new_mapping(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos,
>  	if (ret < 0) {
>  		printk("fuse_setup_one_mapping() failed. err=%d"
>  			" pos=0x%llx, writable=%d\n", ret, pos, writable);
> +
> +		/* liubo: ignore failure if removemapping fails. */
> +		dmap_removemapping_one(inode, dmap);
>  		dmap_add_to_free_pool(fc, alloc_dmap);
> +
>  		up_write(&fi->i_dmap_sem);
>  		return ret;
>  	}
> @@ -3996,7 +4000,8 @@ static int dmap_writeback_invalidate(struct inode *inode,
>  }
>  
>  static int reclaim_one_dmap_locked(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
> -				   struct fuse_dax_mapping *dmap)
> +				   struct fuse_dax_mapping *dmap,
> +				   bool inline_reclaim)
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  	struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
> @@ -4021,6 +4026,13 @@ static int reclaim_one_dmap_locked(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
>  	fuse_dax_interval_tree_remove(dmap, &fi->dmap_tree);
>  	fi->nr_dmaps--;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * for inline reclaim, it's unnecessary to removing mapping since it'll
> +	 * be used by another range immediately.
> +	 */
> +	if (inline_reclaim)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	ret = dmap_removemapping_one(inode, dmap);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		pr_warn("Failed to remove mapping. offset=0x%llx len=0x%llx\n",
> @@ -4051,7 +4063,7 @@ static int reclaim_one_dmap_locked(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
>  	if (!dmap)
>  		return NULL;
>  
> -	ret = reclaim_one_dmap_locked(fc, inode, dmap);
> +	ret = reclaim_one_dmap_locked(fc, inode, dmap, true);
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		return ERR_PTR(ret);
>  
> @@ -4136,7 +4148,7 @@ int lookup_and_reclaim_dmap_locked(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
>  	if (refcount_read(&dmap->refcnt) > 1)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	ret = reclaim_one_dmap_locked(fc, inode, dmap);
> +	ret = reclaim_one_dmap_locked(fc, inode, dmap, false);
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		return ret;
>  
> 


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