From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: dave@sr71.net
Cc: dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
jack@suse.cz, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, eparis@redhat.com,
john@johnmccutchan.com, rlove@rlove.org, ak@linux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched files
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:04:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150630220455.7DE1D236@viggo.jf.intel.com> (raw)
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
I have a _tiny_ microbenchmark that sits in a loop and writes
single bytes to a file. Writing one byte to a tmpfs file is
around 2x slower than reading one byte from a file, which is a
_bit_ more than I expecte. This is a dumb benchmark, but I think
it's hard to deny that write() is a hot path and we should avoid
unnecessary overhead there.
I did a 'perf record' of 30-second samples of read and write.
The top item in a diffprofile is srcu_read_lock() from
fsnotify(). There are active inotify fd's from systemd, but
nothing is actually listening to the file or its part of
the filesystem.
I *think* we can avoid taking the srcu_read_lock() for the
common case where there are no actual marks on the file.
This means that there will both be nothing to notify for
*and* implies that there is no need for clearing the ignore
mask.
This patch gave a 13.1% speedup in writes/second on my test,
which is an improvement from the 10.8% that I saw with the
last version.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: John McCutchan <john@johnmccutchan.com>
Cc: Robert Love <rlove@rlove.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
---
b/fs/notify/fsnotify.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff -puN fs/notify/fsnotify.c~optimize-fsnotify fs/notify/fsnotify.c
--- a/fs/notify/fsnotify.c~optimize-fsnotify 2015-06-30 15:03:56.819399401 -0700
+++ b/fs/notify/fsnotify.c 2015-06-30 15:03:56.822399536 -0700
@@ -205,6 +205,16 @@ int fsnotify(struct inode *to_tell, __u3
mnt = NULL;
/*
+ * Optimization: srcu_read_lock() has a memory barrier which can
+ * be expensive. It protects walking the *_fsnotify_marks lists.
+ * However, if we do not walk the lists, we do not have to do
+ * SRCU because we have no references to any objects and do not
+ * need SRCU to keep them "alive".
+ */
+ if (hlist_empty(&to_tell->i_fsnotify_marks) &&
+ (!mnt || hlist_empty(&mnt->mnt_fsnotify_marks)))
+ return 0;
+ /*
* if this is a modify event we may need to clear the ignored masks
* otherwise return if neither the inode nor the vfsmount care about
* this type of event.
_
next reply other threads:[~2015-06-30 22:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-30 22:04 Dave Hansen [this message]
2015-06-30 22:04 ` [PATCH 2/3] fs: use RCU for free_super() vs. __sb_start_write() Dave Hansen
2015-06-30 22:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] fs: replace memory barrier in __sb_end_write() with RCU Dave Hansen
2015-07-01 8:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched files Jan Kara
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=20150630220455.7DE1D236@viggo.jf.intel.com \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=john@johnmccutchan.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rlove@rlove.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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®