On Mar 10, 2003 18:41 +0300, Alex Tomas wrote:
> Here is the small patch which implements concurrent block allocation
> for ext3. It removes lock_super() in ext3_new_block() and ext3_free_blocks().
> Modifications of counters in superblock and group descriptors are protected
> by spinlock. Tested on SMP for several hours.
Any ideas on how much this improves the performance? What sort of tests
were you running? We could improve things a bit further by having separate
per-group locks for the update of the group descriptor info, and only
lazily update the superblock at statfs and unmount time (with a suitable
feature flag so e2fsck can fix this up at recovery time), but you seem
to have gotten the majority of the parallelism from this fix.
> @@ -214,11 +213,13 @@
> block + i);
> BUFFER_TRACE(bitmap_bh, "bit already cleared");
> } else {
> + spin_lock(&EXT3_SB(sb)->s_alloc_lock);
> dquot_freed_blocks++;
> gdp->bg_free_blocks_count =
> cpu_to_le16(le16_to_cpu(gdp->bg_free_blocks_count)+1);
> es->s_free_blocks_count =
> cpu_to_le32(le32_to_cpu(es->s_free_blocks_count)+1);
> + spin_unlock(&EXT3_SB(sb)->s_alloc_lock);
One minor nit is that you left an ext3_error() for the "bit already cleared"
case just above this patch hunk.
Cheers, Andreas
-- Andreas Dilger http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:22 EST