Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1344468 > unrolled thread

[RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org> - 2016-02-26 18:10 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-29 16:10 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@linaro.org> - 2016-02-29 18:30 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-02-29 18:40 +0100

#1344468 — [RFC PATCH] writeback: move list_lock down into the for loop

The list_lock was moved outside the for loop by commit
e8dfc30582995ae12454cda517b17d6294175b07 ("writeback: elevate queue_io()
into wb_writeback())", however, the commit log says "No behavior change", so
it sounds safe to have the list_lock acquired inside the for loop as it did
before.
Leave tracepoints outside the critical area since tracepoints already have
preempt disabled.

Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
---
Tested with ltp on 8 cores Cortex-A57 machine.

 fs/fs-writeback.c | 12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
index 1f76d89..9b7b5f6 100644
--- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
+++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
@@ -1623,7 +1623,6 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
 	work->older_than_this = &oldest_jif;
 
 	blk_start_plug(&plug);
-	spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
 	for (;;) {
 		/*
 		 * Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed
@@ -1661,15 +1660,19 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
 			oldest_jif = jiffies;
 
 		trace_writeback_start(wb, work);
+
+		spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
 		if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
 			queue_io(wb, work);
 		if (work->sb)
 			progress = writeback_sb_inodes(work->sb, wb, work);
 		else
 			progress = __writeback_inodes_wb(wb, work);
-		trace_writeback_written(wb, work);
 
 		wb_update_bandwidth(wb, wb_start);
+		spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
+
+		trace_writeback_written(wb, work);
 
 		/*
 		 * Did we write something? Try for more
@@ -1693,15 +1696,14 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
 		 */
 		if (!list_empty(&wb->b_more_io))  {
 			trace_writeback_wait(wb, work);
+			spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
 			inode = wb_inode(wb->b_more_io.prev);
-			spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
 			spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
+			spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
 			/* This function drops i_lock... */
 			inode_sleep_on_writeback(inode);
-			spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
 		}
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
 	blk_finish_plug(&plug);
 
 	return nr_pages - work->nr_pages;
-- 
2.0.2

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1345883

On Fri 26-02-16 08:46:25, Yang Shi wrote:
> The list_lock was moved outside the for loop by commit
> e8dfc30582995ae12454cda517b17d6294175b07 ("writeback: elevate queue_io()
> into wb_writeback())", however, the commit log says "No behavior change", so
> it sounds safe to have the list_lock acquired inside the for loop as it did
> before.
> Leave tracepoints outside the critical area since tracepoints already have
> preempt disabled.

The patch says what but it completely misses the why part.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
> ---
> Tested with ltp on 8 cores Cortex-A57 machine.
> 
>  fs/fs-writeback.c | 12 +++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> index 1f76d89..9b7b5f6 100644
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -1623,7 +1623,6 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
>  	work->older_than_this = &oldest_jif;
>  
>  	blk_start_plug(&plug);
> -	spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>  	for (;;) {
>  		/*
>  		 * Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed
> @@ -1661,15 +1660,19 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
>  			oldest_jif = jiffies;
>  
>  		trace_writeback_start(wb, work);
> +
> +		spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>  		if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
>  			queue_io(wb, work);
>  		if (work->sb)
>  			progress = writeback_sb_inodes(work->sb, wb, work);
>  		else
>  			progress = __writeback_inodes_wb(wb, work);
> -		trace_writeback_written(wb, work);
>  
>  		wb_update_bandwidth(wb, wb_start);
> +		spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
> +
> +		trace_writeback_written(wb, work);
>  
>  		/*
>  		 * Did we write something? Try for more
> @@ -1693,15 +1696,14 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
>  		 */
>  		if (!list_empty(&wb->b_more_io))  {
>  			trace_writeback_wait(wb, work);
> +			spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>  			inode = wb_inode(wb->b_more_io.prev);
> -			spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>  			spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
> +			spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>  			/* This function drops i_lock... */
>  			inode_sleep_on_writeback(inode);
> -			spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>  		}
>  	}
> -	spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
>  	blk_finish_plug(&plug);
>  
>  	return nr_pages - work->nr_pages;
> -- 
> 2.0.2
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1346016

On 2/29/2016 7:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 26-02-16 08:46:25, Yang Shi wrote:
>> The list_lock was moved outside the for loop by commit
>> e8dfc30582995ae12454cda517b17d6294175b07 ("writeback: elevate queue_io()
>> into wb_writeback())", however, the commit log says "No behavior change", so
>> it sounds safe to have the list_lock acquired inside the for loop as it did
>> before.
>> Leave tracepoints outside the critical area since tracepoints already have
>> preempt disabled.
>
> The patch says what but it completely misses the why part.

I'm just wondering the finer grained lock may reach a little better 
performance, i.e. more likely for preempt, lower latency.

Thanks,
Yang

>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> Tested with ltp on 8 cores Cortex-A57 machine.
>>
>>   fs/fs-writeback.c | 12 +++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> index 1f76d89..9b7b5f6 100644
>> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> @@ -1623,7 +1623,6 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
>>   	work->older_than_this = &oldest_jif;
>>
>>   	blk_start_plug(&plug);
>> -	spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>>   	for (;;) {
>>   		/*
>>   		 * Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed
>> @@ -1661,15 +1660,19 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
>>   			oldest_jif = jiffies;
>>
>>   		trace_writeback_start(wb, work);
>> +
>> +		spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>>   		if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
>>   			queue_io(wb, work);
>>   		if (work->sb)
>>   			progress = writeback_sb_inodes(work->sb, wb, work);
>>   		else
>>   			progress = __writeback_inodes_wb(wb, work);
>> -		trace_writeback_written(wb, work);
>>
>>   		wb_update_bandwidth(wb, wb_start);
>> +		spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
>> +
>> +		trace_writeback_written(wb, work);
>>
>>   		/*
>>   		 * Did we write something? Try for more
>> @@ -1693,15 +1696,14 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
>>   		 */
>>   		if (!list_empty(&wb->b_more_io))  {
>>   			trace_writeback_wait(wb, work);
>> +			spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>>   			inode = wb_inode(wb->b_more_io.prev);
>> -			spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>>   			spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
>> +			spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>>   			/* This function drops i_lock... */
>>   			inode_sleep_on_writeback(inode);
>> -			spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>>   		}
>>   	}
>> -	spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
>>   	blk_finish_plug(&plug);
>>
>>   	return nr_pages - work->nr_pages;
>> --
>> 2.0.2
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
>> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
>> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
>> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1346027

On Mon 29-02-16 09:27:44, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 2/29/2016 7:06 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Fri 26-02-16 08:46:25, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>The list_lock was moved outside the for loop by commit
> >>e8dfc30582995ae12454cda517b17d6294175b07 ("writeback: elevate queue_io()
> >>into wb_writeback())", however, the commit log says "No behavior change", so
> >>it sounds safe to have the list_lock acquired inside the for loop as it did
> >>before.
> >>Leave tracepoints outside the critical area since tracepoints already have
> >>preempt disabled.
> >
> >The patch says what but it completely misses the why part.
> 
> I'm just wondering the finer grained lock may reach a little better
> performance, i.e. more likely for preempt, lower latency.

If this is supposed to be a performance enhancement then some numbers
would definitely make it easier to get in. Or even an arguments to back
your theory. Basing your argument on 4+ years commit doesn't really seem
sound... Just to make it clear, I am not opposing the patch I just
stumbled over it and the changelog was just too terrible which made me
response.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web