Re: [PATCH] ext2/ext3: allocate ->s_blockgroup_lock separately toavoid wasting space
From: Andreas Dilger
Date: Fri Nov 14 2008 - 16:26:50 EST
On Nov 14, 2008 11:17 +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> As spotted by kmemtrace, struct ext2_sb_info is 17024 bytes and ext3_sb_info is
> 17152 bytes on 64-bit which makes them a very bad fit for SLAB allocators. In
> fact, both allocations are round up to the next available page size of
> order 3 which is 32 KB.
>
> The culprit if the wasted memory is the ->s_blockgroup_lock which can be as
> big as 16 KB when CONFIG_NR_CPUS is set to 32. As struct blockgroup_lock is a
> perfect fit for order 2 page in the worst case, allocate ->s_blockgroup_lock
> separately to avoid wasting space.
>
> The change shrinks struct ext2_sb_info to 592 bytes and struct ext3_sb_info to
> 640 bytes which fits into a 1024 byte slab cache so now we allocate 16 KB + 1
> KB instead of 32 KB saving 15 KB of memory!
>
> Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This looks very reasonable, with some minor comments below.
Could you please also include a patch for ext4. Also, Andrew prefers that
the patches for ext2/ext3/ext4 are in separate emails.
> --- a/include/linux/blockgroup_lock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blockgroup_lock.h
> #define sb_bgl_lock(sb, block_group) \
> - (&(sb)->s_blockgroup_lock.locks[(block_group) & (NR_BG_LOCKS-1)].lock)
> + (&(sb)->s_blockgroup_lock->locks[(block_group) & (NR_BG_LOCKS-1)].lock)
How the struct is allocated seems like an implementation detail that doesn't
belong in blockgroup_lock.h at all, because "sb" is not "struct superblock"
but rather "struct ext[23]_sb_info". In fact, changing this without also
patching ext4 would cause ext4 to break.
I would suggest to change this to take the s_blockgroup_lock as a parameter,
#define bgl_lock_ptr(bgl, block_group)
(bgl->locks[(block_group) & (NR_BG_LOCKS - 1)].lock)
and then in ext[234]_fs_sb.h add a new helper in the same (first) patch:
#define sb_bgl_lock(sbi, block_group)
bgl_lock_ptr(&sbi->s_blockgroup_lock, block_group)
and remove sb_bgl_lock() from blockgroup_lock.h entirely. As part of the
later patches to change the s_blockgroup_lock allocations for each of
ext[234] this changes in ext[234]_fs_sb.h to:
#define sb_bgl_lock(sbi, block_group)
bgl_lock_ptr(sbi->s_blockgroup_lock, block_group)
This allows each of the later patches to be landed separately without
breaking the build.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/