From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Meta kernel team <kernel-team@meta.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: optimize truncation of shadow entries
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:08:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240911210824.GA117602@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240911173801.4025422-2-shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:38:00AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> The kernel truncates the page cache in batches of PAGEVEC_SIZE. For each
> batch, it traverses the page cache tree and collects the entries (folio
> and shadow entries) in the struct folio_batch. For the shadow entries
> present in the folio_batch, it has to traverse the page cache tree for
> each individual entry to remove them. This patch optimize this by
> removing them in a single tree traversal.
>
> On large machines in our production which run workloads manipulating
> large amount of data, we have observed that a large amount of CPUs are
> spent on truncation of very large files (100s of GiBs file sizes). More
> specifically most of time was spent on shadow entries cleanup, so
> optimizing the shadow entries cleanup, even a little bit, has good
> impact.
>
> To evaluate the changes, we created 200GiB file on a fuse fs and in a
> memcg. We created the shadow entries by triggering reclaim through
> memory.reclaim in that specific memcg and measure the simple truncation
> operation.
>
> # time truncate -s 0 file
>
> time (sec)
> Without 5.164 +- 0.059
> With-patch 4.21 +- 0.066 (18.47% decrease)
>
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Looks good to me. One thing that's a bit subtle is that the tree walk
assumes indices[] are ordered, such that indices[0] and indices[nr-1]
reliably denote the range of interest. AFAICS that's the case for the
current callers but if not that could be a painful bug to hunt down.
Assessing lowest and highest index in that first batch iteration seems
a bit overkill though. Maybe just a comment stating the requirement?
Otherwise,
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-11 21:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-11 17:37 [PATCH 0/2] mm: optimize shadow entries removal Shakeel Butt
2024-09-11 17:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: optimize truncation of shadow entries Shakeel Butt
2024-09-11 21:08 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2024-09-11 22:20 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-09-11 17:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: optimize invalidation " Shakeel Butt
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=20240911210824.GA117602@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=osandov@osandov.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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