| Message ID | 20240717145018.3972922-1-yu.ma@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | fs/file.c: optimize the critical section of file_lock in | expand |
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:50:15 -0400, Yu Ma wrote: > pts/blogbench-1.1.0 is a benchmark designed to replicate the > load of a real-world busy file server by multiple threads of > random reads, writes, and rewrites. When running default configuration > with multiple parallel threads, hot spin lock contention is observed > from alloc_fd(), file_closed_fd() and put_unused_fd() around file_lock. > > These 3 patches are created to reduce the critical section of file_lock > in alloc_fd() and close_fd(). As a result, on top of patch 1, > pts/blogbench-1.1.0 has been improved by 22% for read and 8% for write > on Intel ICX 160 cores configuration with v6.10-rc7. > > [...] Applied to the vfs.misc branch of the vfs/vfs.git tree. Patches in the vfs.misc branch should appear in linux-next soon. Please report any outstanding bugs that were missed during review in a new review to the original patch series allowing us to drop it. It's encouraged to provide Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys even though the patch has now been applied. If possible patch trailers will be updated. Note that commit hashes shown below are subject to change due to rebase, trailer updates or similar. If in doubt, please check the listed branch. tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git branch: vfs.misc [1/3] fs/file.c: remove sanity_check and add likely/unlikely in alloc_fd() https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/19f4a3f5712a [2/3] fs/file.c: conditionally clear full_fds https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/b483266658a8 [3/3] fs/file.c: add fast path in find_next_fd() https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/3603a42c8c03
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 05:02:04PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > Applied to the vfs.misc branch of the vfs/vfs.git tree. > Patches in the vfs.misc branch should appear in linux-next soon. > > Please report any outstanding bugs that were missed during review in a > new review to the original patch series allowing us to drop it. > > It's encouraged to provide Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys even though the > patch has now been applied. If possible patch trailers will be updated. > > Note that commit hashes shown below are subject to change due to rebase, > trailer updates or similar. If in doubt, please check the listed branch. > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git > branch: vfs.misc > > [1/3] fs/file.c: remove sanity_check and add likely/unlikely in alloc_fd() > https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/19f4a3f5712a > [2/3] fs/file.c: conditionally clear full_fds > https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/b483266658a8 > [3/3] fs/file.c: add fast path in find_next_fd() > https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/3603a42c8c03 Hmm... Something fishy's going on - those are not reachable by any branches. As the matter of fact, none of the branches contain _anything_ recent in fs/file.c or include/linux/fdtable.h; the only thing I see for include/linux/file.h is (dubious, IMO) DEFINE_FREE(fput,...) - this IS_ERR_OR_NULL in there needs a review of potential users. I'm putting together (in viro/vfs.git) a branch for that area (#work.fdtable) and I'm going to apply those 3 unless anyone objects.
> Hmm... Something fishy's going on - those are not reachable by any branches. Hm, they probably got dropped when rebasing to v6.11-rc1 and I did have to play around with --onto. > I'm putting together (in viro/vfs.git) a branch for that area (#work.fdtable) > and I'm going to apply those 3 unless anyone objects. Fine since they aren't in that branch. Otherwise I generally prefer to just merge a common branch. But that's rarely needed since Linus handles merge conflicts anyway and doesn't mind.
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:04:44PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > Hmm... Something fishy's going on - those are not reachable by any branches. > > Hm, they probably got dropped when rebasing to v6.11-rc1 and I did have > to play around with --onto. > > > I'm putting together (in viro/vfs.git) a branch for that area (#work.fdtable) > > and I'm going to apply those 3 unless anyone objects. > > Fine since they aren't in that branch. Otherwise I generally prefer to > just merge a common branch. If it's going to be rebased anyway, I don't see much difference from cherry-pick, TBH...
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 03:22:48PM GMT, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:04:44PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > Hmm... Something fishy's going on - those are not reachable by any branches. > > > > Hm, they probably got dropped when rebasing to v6.11-rc1 and I did have > > to play around with --onto. > > > > > I'm putting together (in viro/vfs.git) a branch for that area (#work.fdtable) > > > and I'm going to apply those 3 unless anyone objects. > > > > Fine since they aren't in that branch. Otherwise I generally prefer to > > just merge a common branch. > > If it's going to be rebased anyway, I don't see much difference from cherry-pick, > TBH... Yeah, but I generally don't rebase after -rc1 anymore unles there's really annoying conflicts.
On 8/5/2024 2:56 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 03:22:48PM GMT, Al Viro wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:04:44PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: >>>> Hmm... Something fishy's going on - those are not reachable by any branches. >>> Hm, they probably got dropped when rebasing to v6.11-rc1 and I did have >>> to play around with --onto. >>> >>>> I'm putting together (in viro/vfs.git) a branch for that area (#work.fdtable) >>>> and I'm going to apply those 3 unless anyone objects. >>> Fine since they aren't in that branch. Otherwise I generally prefer to >>> just merge a common branch. >> If it's going to be rebased anyway, I don't see much difference from cherry-pick, >> TBH... > Yeah, but I generally don't rebase after -rc1 anymore unles there's > really annoying conflicts. Thanks Christian and Al for your time and efforts. I'm not familiar with the merging process, may i know about when these patches could be seen in master ? Regards Yu
On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 09:31:17AM +0800, Ma, Yu wrote: > > On 8/5/2024 2:56 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 03:22:48PM GMT, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:04:44PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > Hmm... Something fishy's going on - those are not reachable by any branches. > > > > Hm, they probably got dropped when rebasing to v6.11-rc1 and I did have > > > > to play around with --onto. > > > > > > > > > I'm putting together (in viro/vfs.git) a branch for that area (#work.fdtable) > > > > > and I'm going to apply those 3 unless anyone objects. > > > > Fine since they aren't in that branch. Otherwise I generally prefer to > > > > just merge a common branch. > > > If it's going to be rebased anyway, I don't see much difference from cherry-pick, > > > TBH... > > Yeah, but I generally don't rebase after -rc1 anymore unles there's > > really annoying conflicts. > > Thanks Christian and Al for your time and efforts. I'm not familiar with the > merging process, may i know about when these patches could be seen in master It's in work.fdtable in my tree, will post that series tonight and add to #for-next
On 8/12/2024 10:40 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 09:31:17AM +0800, Ma, Yu wrote: >> On 8/5/2024 2:56 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 03:22:48PM GMT, Al Viro wrote: >>>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:04:44PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: >>>>>> Hmm... Something fishy's going on - those are not reachable by any branches. >>>>> Hm, they probably got dropped when rebasing to v6.11-rc1 and I did have >>>>> to play around with --onto. >>>>> >>>>>> I'm putting together (in viro/vfs.git) a branch for that area (#work.fdtable) >>>>>> and I'm going to apply those 3 unless anyone objects. >>>>> Fine since they aren't in that branch. Otherwise I generally prefer to >>>>> just merge a common branch. >>>> If it's going to be rebased anyway, I don't see much difference from cherry-pick, >>>> TBH... >>> Yeah, but I generally don't rebase after -rc1 anymore unles there's >>> really annoying conflicts. >> Thanks Christian and Al for your time and efforts. I'm not familiar with the >> merging process, may i know about when these patches could be seen in master > It's in work.fdtable in my tree, will post that series tonight and add to #for-next Thanks Al for confirmation :)
On Mon 12-08-24 03:40:44, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 09:31:17AM +0800, Ma, Yu wrote: > > > > On 8/5/2024 2:56 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 03:22:48PM GMT, Al Viro wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:04:44PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > Hmm... Something fishy's going on - those are not reachable by any branches. > > > > > Hm, they probably got dropped when rebasing to v6.11-rc1 and I did have > > > > > to play around with --onto. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm putting together (in viro/vfs.git) a branch for that area (#work.fdtable) > > > > > > and I'm going to apply those 3 unless anyone objects. > > > > > Fine since they aren't in that branch. Otherwise I generally prefer to > > > > > just merge a common branch. > > > > If it's going to be rebased anyway, I don't see much difference from cherry-pick, > > > > TBH... > > > Yeah, but I generally don't rebase after -rc1 anymore unles there's > > > really annoying conflicts. > > > > Thanks Christian and Al for your time and efforts. I'm not familiar with the > > merging process, may i know about when these patches could be seen in master > > It's in work.fdtable in my tree, will post that series tonight and add to #for-next Al, it seems you didn't push the patches to Linus during the last merge window. Do you plan to push them during the coming one? Honza
On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 06:44:23PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 12-08-24 03:40:44, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 09:31:17AM +0800, Ma, Yu wrote: > > > > > > On 8/5/2024 2:56 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 03:22:48PM GMT, Al Viro wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:04:44PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > > Hmm... Something fishy's going on - those are not reachable by any branches. > > > > > > Hm, they probably got dropped when rebasing to v6.11-rc1 and I did have > > > > > > to play around with --onto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm putting together (in viro/vfs.git) a branch for that area (#work.fdtable) > > > > > > > and I'm going to apply those 3 unless anyone objects. > > > > > > Fine since they aren't in that branch. Otherwise I generally prefer to > > > > > > just merge a common branch. > > > > > If it's going to be rebased anyway, I don't see much difference from cherry-pick, > > > > > TBH... > > > > Yeah, but I generally don't rebase after -rc1 anymore unles there's > > > > really annoying conflicts. > > > > > > Thanks Christian and Al for your time and efforts. I'm not familiar with the > > > merging process, may i know about when these patches could be seen in master > > > > It's in work.fdtable in my tree, will post that series tonight and add to #for-next > > Al, it seems you didn't push the patches to Linus during the last merge > window. Do you plan to push them during the coming one? Yes, I do. I can merge that branch into viro/vfs.git#for-next, but that would be redundant - note that vfs/vfs.git#workd.fdtable is identical to it (same sha1 of head) and vfs/vfs.git#vfs.file contains a merge from it and vfs/vfs.git#vfs.all merges #vfs.file. So it's already in linux-next in the current form and until something else gets added to the branch I see no point.