From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Jens Axboe'" <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [patch] speed up single bio_vec allocation
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:19:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000001c71963$17d88130$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061206100847.GP4392@kernel.dk>
Jens Axboe wrote on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:09 AM
> > > I will try that too. I'm a bit touchy about sharing a cache line for
> > > different bio. But given that there are 200,000 I/O per second we are
> > > currently pushing the kernel, the chances of two cpu working on two
> > > bio that sits in the same cache line are pretty small.
> >
> > Yep I really think so. Besides, it's not like we are repeatedly writing
> > to these objects in the first place.
>
> This is what I had in mind, in case it wasn't completely clear. Not
> tested, other than it compiles. Basically it eliminates the small
> bio_vec pool, and grows the bio by 16-bytes on 64-bit archs, or by
> 12-bytes on 32-bit archs instead and uses the room at the end for the
> bio_vec structure.
Yeah, I had a very similar patch queued internally for the large benchmark
measurement. I will post the result as soon as I get it.
> I still can't help but think we can do better than this, and that this
> is nothing more than optimizing for a benchmark. For high performance
> I/O, you will be doing > 1 page bio's anyway and this patch wont help
> you at all. Perhaps we can just kill bio_vec slabs completely, and
> create bio slabs instead with differing sizes. So instead of having 1
> bio slab and 5 bio_vec slabs, change that to 5 bio slabs that leave room
> for the bio_vec list at the end. That would always eliminate the extra
> allocation, at the cost of blowing the 256-page case into a order 1 page
> allocation (256*16 + sizeof(*bio) > PAGE_SIZE) for the 4kb 64-bit archs,
> which is something I've always tried to avoid.
I took a quick query of biovec-* slab stats on various production machines,
majority of the allocation is on 1 and 4 segments, usages falls off quickly
on 16 or more. 256 segment biovec allocation is really rare. I think it
makes sense to heavily bias towards smaller biovec allocation and have
separate biovec allocation for really large ones.
- Ken
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-06 18:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-04 19:27 Chen, Kenneth W
2006-12-04 20:06 ` Jens Axboe
2006-12-04 20:36 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-12-04 20:43 ` Jens Axboe
2006-12-06 10:08 ` Jens Axboe
2006-12-06 10:56 ` Jens Axboe
2006-12-06 18:19 ` Chen, Kenneth W [this message]
2006-12-07 19:22 ` Nate Diller
2006-12-07 19:36 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-12-07 21:46 ` Nate Diller
2006-12-07 21:52 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-12-07 22:33 ` Nate Diller
2006-12-08 8:01 ` Jens Axboe
2006-12-08 2:27 ` Andi Kleen
2006-12-08 4:23 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-12-08 4:37 ` Andi Kleen
2006-12-08 22:14 Chen, Kenneth W
2006-12-14 20:23 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='000001c71963$17d88130$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com' \
--to=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®