| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | delayed-ref.h | 5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | delayed-ref.c | 5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | transaction.c | 5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | disk-io.c | 5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | extent-tree.c | 5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
5c9d028b Wed Aug 22 14:51:49 CDT 2018 Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com> Btrfs: delayed-refs: use rb_first_cached for href_root
rb_first_cached() trades an extra pointer "leftmost" for doing the same
job as rb_first() but in O(1).
Functions manipulating href_root need to get the first entry, this
converts href_root to use rb_first_cached().
This patch is first in the sequenct of similar updates to other rbtrees
and this is analysis of the expected behaviour and improvements.
There's a common pattern:
while (node = rb_first) {
entry = rb_entry(node)
next = rb_next(node)
rb_erase(node)
cleanup(entry)
}
rb_first needs to traverse the tree up to logN depth, rb_erase can
completely reshuffle the tree. With the caching we'll skip the traversal
in rb_first. That's a cached memory access vs looped pointer
dereference trade-off that IMHO has a clear winner.
Measurements show there's not much difference in a sample tree with
10000 nodes: 4.5s / rb_first and 4.8s / rb_first_cached. Real effects of
caching and pointer chasing are unpredictable though.
Further optimzations can be done to avoid the expensive rb_erase step.
In some cases it's ok to process the nodes in any order, so the tree can
be traversed in post-order, not rebalancing the children nodes and just
calling free. Care must be taken regarding the next node.
Tested-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog from mail discussions ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|