On      fri, 1 Feb 2013 10:53:30 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 05:39:03PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>> This idea is from ext4. By this patch, we can make the dio write parallel,
>> and improve the performance.
> 
> Interesting, AFAIK, ext4 can only do nolock dio write on some
> conditions(should be a overwrite, file size remains unchanged,
> no aligned/buffer io in flight), btrfs is ok without any conditions?

ext4 don't have extent lock, it can not avoid 2 AIO  threads are at work on the 
same
unwritten block, so it can not use unlocked dio write for unaligned dio/aio. 
But btrfs
has extent lock, it can avoid this problem.

And ext4 need take write lock of ->i_data_sem, when it allocate the free space,
but in order to avoid truncation and hole punch during dio, it need take the 
read
lock of ->i_data_sem before it release ->i_mutex, that is if it isn't a 
overwrite,
deadlock will happen, so the unlocked dio of ext4 should be a overwrite. But 
btrfs
doesn't have such limitation.

Thanks
Miao

> 
> thanks,
> liubo
> 
>>
>> We needn't worry about the race between dio write and truncate, because the
>> truncate need wait untill all the dio write end.
>>
>> And we also needn't worry about the race between dio write and punch hole,
>> because we have extent lock to protect our operation.
>>
>> I ran fio to test the performance of this feature.
>>
>> == Hardware ==
>> CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E7500  @ 2.93GHz
>> Mem: 2GB
>> SSD: Intel X25-M 120GB (Test Partition: 60GB)
>>
>> == config file ==
>> [global]
>> ioengine=psync
>> direct=1
>> bs=4k
>> size=32G
>> runtime=60
>> directory=/mnt/btrfs/
>> filename=testfile
>> group_reporting
>> thread
>>
>> [file1]
>> numjobs=1 # 2 4
>> rw=randwrite
>>
>> == result (KBps) ==
>> write        1       2       4
>> lock 24936   24738   24726
>> nolock       24962   30866   32101
>>
>> == result (iops) ==
>> write        1       2       4
>> lock 6234    6184    6181
>> nolock       6240    7716    8025
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>  fs/btrfs/inode.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> index d17a04b..091593a 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> @@ -6589,31 +6589,33 @@ static ssize_t btrfs_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb 
>> *iocb,
>>      struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp;
>>      struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
>>      int flags = 0;
>> -    bool wakeup = false;
>> +    bool wakeup = true;
>>      int ret;
>>  
>>      if (check_direct_IO(BTRFS_I(inode)->root, rw, iocb, iov,
>>                          offset, nr_segs))
>>              return 0;
>>  
>> -    if (rw == READ) {
>> -            atomic_inc(&inode->i_dio_count);
>> -            smp_mb__after_atomic_inc();
>> -            if (unlikely(test_bit(BTRFS_INODE_READDIO_NEED_LOCK,
>> -                                  &BTRFS_I(inode)->runtime_flags))) {
>> -                    inode_dio_done(inode);
>> -                    flags = DIO_LOCKING | DIO_SKIP_HOLES;
>> -            } else {
>> -                    wakeup = true;
>> -            }
>> +    atomic_inc(&inode->i_dio_count);
>> +    smp_mb__after_atomic_inc();
>> +    if (rw == WRITE) {
>> +            mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
>> +    } else if (unlikely(test_bit(BTRFS_INODE_READDIO_NEED_LOCK,
>> +                                 &BTRFS_I(inode)->runtime_flags))) {
>> +            inode_dio_done(inode);
>> +            flags = DIO_LOCKING | DIO_SKIP_HOLES;
>> +            wakeup = false;
>>      }
>>  
>>      ret = __blockdev_direct_IO(rw, iocb, inode,
>>                      BTRFS_I(inode)->root->fs_info->fs_devices->latest_bdev,
>>                      iov, offset, nr_segs, btrfs_get_blocks_direct, NULL,
>>                      btrfs_submit_direct, flags);
>> +
>>      if (wakeup)
>>              inode_dio_done(inode);
>> +    if (rw == WRITE)
>> +            mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
>>      return ret;
>>  }
>>  
>> -- 
>> 1.7.11.7
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to