-
由 Christoph Hellwig 提交于
Split the global inode_wb_list_lock into a per-bdi_writeback list_lock, as it's currently the most contended lock in the system for metadata heavy workloads. It won't help for single-filesystem workloads for which we'll need the I/O-less balance_dirty_pages, but at least we can dedicate a cpu to spinning on each bdi now for larger systems. Based on earlier patches from Nick Piggin and Dave Chinner. It reduces lock contentions to 1/4 in this test case: 10 HDD JBOD, 100 dd on each disk, XFS, 6GB ram lock_stat version 0.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vanilla 2.6.39-rc3: inode_wb_list_lock: 42590 44433 0.12 147.74 144127.35 252274 886792 0.08 121.34 917211.23 ------------------ inode_wb_list_lock 2 [<ffffffff81165da5>] bdev_inode_switch_bdi+0x29/0x85 inode_wb_list_lock 34 [<ffffffff8115bd0b>] inode_wb_list_del+0x22/0x49 inode_wb_list_lock 12893 [<ffffffff8115bb53>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x170/0x1d0 inode_wb_list_lock 10702 [<ffffffff8115afef>] writeback_single_inode+0x16d/0x20a ------------------ inode_wb_list_lock 2 [<ffffffff81165da5>] bdev_inode_switch_bdi+0x29/0x85 inode_wb_list_lock 19 [<ffffffff8115bd0b>] inode_wb_list_del+0x22/0x49 inode_wb_list_lock 5550 [<ffffffff8115bb53>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x170/0x1d0 inode_wb_list_lock 8511 [<ffffffff8115b4ad>] writeback_sb_inodes+0x10f/0x157 2.6.39-rc3 + patch: &(&wb->list_lock)->rlock: 11383 11657 0.14 151.69 40429.51 90825 527918 0.11 145.90 556843.37 ------------------------ &(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 10 [<ffffffff8115b189>] inode_wb_list_del+0x5f/0x86 &(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 1493 [<ffffffff8115b1ed>] writeback_inodes_wb+0x3d/0x150 &(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 3652 [<ffffffff8115a8e9>] writeback_sb_inodes+0x123/0x16f &(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 1412 [<ffffffff8115a38e>] writeback_single_inode+0x17f/0x223 ------------------------ &(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 3 [<ffffffff8110b5af>] bdi_lock_two+0x46/0x4b &(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 6 [<ffffffff8115b189>] inode_wb_list_del+0x5f/0x86 &(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 2061 [<ffffffff8115af97>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x173/0x1cf &(&wb->list_lock)->rlock 2629 [<ffffffff8115a8e9>] writeback_sb_inodes+0x123/0x16f hughd@google.com: fix recursive lock when bdi_lock_two() is called with new the same as old akpm@linux-foundation.org: cleanup bdev_inode_switch_bdi() comment Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Signed-off-by: NHugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: NWu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
f758eeab