Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: Optimise layout of btrfs_block_group_cache

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 26.06.2017 17:42, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> With this patch applied pahole stats look like:
> 
> /* size: 840, cachelines: 14, members: 40 */
> /* sum members: 833, holes: 1, sum holes: 7 */
> /* bit holes: 1, sum bit holes: 28 bits */
> /* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
> 
> No functional changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> index cdd3775e930b..bdd06bbeb9aa 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> @@ -586,6 +586,11 @@ struct btrfs_block_group_cache {
>  	unsigned int iref:1;
>  	unsigned int has_caching_ctl:1;
>  	unsigned int removed:1;
> +	/*
> +	 * Does the block group need to be added to the free space tree?
> +	 * Protected by free_space_lock.
> +	 */
> +	unsigned int needs_free_space:1;
Upon closer inspection of memory-barriers.txt I'm not confident in this
change. This puts fields protected by different locks in the same
bitfield which can lead to corrupted values.

>  
>  	int disk_cache_state;
>  
> @@ -608,6 +613,8 @@ struct btrfs_block_group_cache {
>  	/* usage count */
>  	atomic_t count;
>  
> +	atomic_t trimming

This one will likely eliminated 1 hole in the struct so I might end up
sending v2 of this patch.

> +
>  	/* List of struct btrfs_free_clusters for this block group.
>  	 * Today it will only have one thing on it, but that may change
>  	 */
> @@ -619,8 +626,6 @@ struct btrfs_block_group_cache {
>  	/* For read-only block groups */
>  	struct list_head ro_list;
>  
> -	atomic_t trimming;
> -
>  	/* For dirty block groups */
>  	struct list_head dirty_list;
>  	struct list_head io_list;
> @@ -651,11 +656,6 @@ struct btrfs_block_group_cache {
>  	/* Lock for free space tree operations. */
>  	struct mutex free_space_lock;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Does the block group need to be added to the free space tree?
> -	 * Protected by free_space_lock.
> -	 */
> -	int needs_free_space;
>  
>  	/* Record locked full stripes for RAID5/6 block group */
>  	struct btrfs_full_stripe_locks_tree full_stripe_locks_root;
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux