lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch 42/52] fs: icache per-cpu last_ino allocator
Date
npiggin@suse.de writes:

> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
>
> new_inode() dirties a contended cache line to get increasing inode numbers.
>
> Solve this problem by providing to each cpu a per_cpu variable, feeded by the
> shared last_ino, but once every 1024 allocations.

Most file systems don't even need this because they
allocate their own inode numbers, right?. So perhaps it could be turned
off for all of those, e.g. with a superblock flag.

I guess the main customer is sockets only.

> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +/*
> + * Each cpu owns a range of 1024 numbers.
> + * 'shared_last_ino' is dirtied only once out of 1024 allocations,
> + * to renew the exhausted range.
> + *
> + * On a 32bit, non LFS stat() call, glibc will generate an EOVERFLOW
> + * error if st_ino won't fit in target struct field. Use 32bit counter
> + * here to attempt to avoid that.

I don't understand how the 32bit counter should prevent that.

> + */
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, last_ino);
> +static atomic_t shared_last_ino;

With the 1024 skip, isn't overflow much more likely, just scaling
with the number of CPUs on a large CPU number systems, even if there
aren't that many new inodes?

> +static int last_ino_get(void)
> +{
> + int *p = &get_cpu_var(last_ino);
> + int res = *p;
> +
> + if (unlikely((res & 1023) == 0))
> + res = atomic_add_return(1024, &shared_last_ino) - 1024;

The magic numbers really want to be defines?

-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-24 11:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site