[v2] ocfs2: improve recovery performance
diff mbox

Message ID 20160708142341.5d8c3ab794e89cc981267391@linux-foundation.org
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Andrew Morton July 8, 2016, 9:23 p.m. UTC
On Thu,  7 Jul 2016 10:24:48 +0800 Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com> wrote:

> Journal replay will be run when do recovery for a dead node,
> to avoid the stale cache impact, all blocks of dead node's
> journal inode were reload from disk. This hurts the performance,
> check whether one block is cached before reload it can improve
> a lot performance. In my test env, the time doing recovery was
> improved from 120s to 1s.

So since v1 you did this (unchangelogged bugfix!):

Comments

Junxiao Bi July 11, 2016, 2:12 a.m. UTC | #1
On 07/09/2016 05:23 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu,  7 Jul 2016 10:24:48 +0800 Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> Journal replay will be run when do recovery for a dead node,
>> to avoid the stale cache impact, all blocks of dead node's
>> journal inode were reload from disk. This hurts the performance,
>> check whether one block is cached before reload it can improve
>> a lot performance. In my test env, the time doing recovery was
>> improved from 120s to 1s.
> 
> So since v1 you did this (unchangelogged bugfix!):
> 
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c~ocfs2-improve-recovery-performance-v2
> +++ a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c
> @@ -1194,6 +1194,7 @@ static int ocfs2_force_read_journal(stru
>  
>  			brelse(bh);
>  			bh = NULL;
> +			p_blkno++;
>  		}
>  
>  		v_blkno += p_blocks;
> 
> 
> I suppose this is a bit neater?
Yes, looks good. Thank you.

Thanks,
Junxiao.
> 
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c~ocfs2-improve-recovery-performance-v2-fix
> +++ a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c
> @@ -1172,14 +1172,12 @@ static int ocfs2_force_read_journal(stru
>  			goto bail;
>  		}
>  
> -		for (i = 0; i < p_blocks; i++) {
> +		for (i = 0; i < p_blocks; i++, p_blkno++) {
>  			bh = __find_get_block(osb->sb->s_bdev, p_blkno,
>  					osb->sb->s_blocksize);
>  			/* block not cached. */
> -			if (!bh) {
> -				p_blkno++;
> +			if (!bh)
>  				continue;
> -			}
>  
>  			brelse(bh);
>  			bh = NULL;
> @@ -1194,7 +1192,6 @@ static int ocfs2_force_read_journal(stru
>  
>  			brelse(bh);
>  			bh = NULL;
> -			p_blkno++;
>  		}
>  
>  		v_blkno += p_blocks;
> _
>

Patch
diff mbox

--- a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c~ocfs2-improve-recovery-performance-v2
+++ a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c
@@ -1194,6 +1194,7 @@  static int ocfs2_force_read_journal(stru
 
 			brelse(bh);
 			bh = NULL;
+			p_blkno++;
 		}
 
 		v_blkno += p_blocks;


I suppose this is a bit neater?

--- a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c~ocfs2-improve-recovery-performance-v2-fix
+++ a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c
@@ -1172,14 +1172,12 @@  static int ocfs2_force_read_journal(stru
 			goto bail;
 		}
 
-		for (i = 0; i < p_blocks; i++) {
+		for (i = 0; i < p_blocks; i++, p_blkno++) {
 			bh = __find_get_block(osb->sb->s_bdev, p_blkno,
 					osb->sb->s_blocksize);
 			/* block not cached. */
-			if (!bh) {
-				p_blkno++;
+			if (!bh)
 				continue;
-			}
 
 			brelse(bh);
 			bh = NULL;
@@ -1194,7 +1192,6 @@  static int ocfs2_force_read_journal(stru
 
 			brelse(bh);
 			bh = NULL;
-			p_blkno++;
 		}
 
 		v_blkno += p_blocks;