Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iov_iter: optimise iov_iter_npages for bvec

[Ming Lei]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:06:10AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:56:22AM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > On 20/11/2020 01:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:39:05AM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > >> On 20/11/2020 01:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:24:38PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > >>>> The block layer spends quite a while in iov_iter_npages(), but for the
> > >>>> bvec case the number of pages is already known and stored in
> > >>>> iter->nr_segs, so it can be returned immediately as an optimisation
> > >>>
> > >>> Er ... no, it doesn't.  nr_segs is the number of bvecs.  Each bvec can
> > >>> store up to 4GB of contiguous physical memory.
> > >>
> > >> Ah, really, missed min() with PAGE_SIZE in bvec_iter_len(), then it's a
> > >> stupid statement. Thanks!
> > >>
> > >> Are there many users of that? All these iterators are a huge burden,
> > >> just to count one 4KB page in bvec it takes 2% of CPU time for me.
> > > 
> > > __bio_try_merge_page() will create multipage BIOs, and that's
> > > called from a number of places including
> > > bio_try_merge_hw_seg(), bio_add_page(), and __bio_iov_iter_get_pages()
> > 
> > I get it that there are a lot of places, more interesting how often
> > it's actually triggered and if that's performance critical for anybody.
> > Not like I'm going to change it, just out of curiosity, but bvec.h
> > can be nicely optimised without it.
> 
> Typically when you're allocating pages for the page cache, they'll get
> allocated in order and then you'll read or write them in order, so yes,
> it ends up triggering quite a lot.  There was once a bug in the page
> allocator which caused them to get allocated in reverse order and it
> was a noticable performance hit (this was 15-20 years ago).

hugepage use cases can benefit much from this way too.


Thanks,
Ming