Skip to content
Commit f26c9238 authored by Qu Wenruo's avatar Qu Wenruo Committed by David Sterba
Browse files

btrfs: remove reada infrastructure



Currently there is only one user for btrfs metadata readahead, and
that's scrub.

But even for the single user, it's not providing the correct
functionality it needs, as scrub needs reada for commit root, which
current readahead can't provide. (Although it's pretty easy to add such
feature).

Despite this, there are some extra problems related to metadata
readahead:

- Duplicated feature with btrfs_path::reada

- Partly duplicated feature of btrfs_fs_info::buffer_radix
  Btrfs already caches its metadata in buffer_radix, while readahead
  tries to read the tree block no matter if it's already cached.

- Poor layer separation
  Metadata readahead works kinda at device level.
  This is definitely not the correct layer it should be, since metadata
  is at btrfs logical address space, it should not bother device at all.

  This brings extra chance for bugs to sneak in, while brings
  unnecessary complexity.

- Dead code
  In the very beginning of scrub.c we have #undef DEBUG, rendering all
  the debug related code useless and unable to test.

Thus here I purpose to remove the metadata readahead mechanism
completely.

[BENCHMARK]
There is a full benchmark for the scrub performance difference using the
old btrfs_reada_add() and btrfs_path::reada.

For the worst case (no dirty metadata, slow HDD), there could be a 5%
performance drop for scrub.
For other cases (even SATA SSD), there is no distinguishable performance
difference.

The number is reported scrub speed, in MiB/s.
The resolution is limited by the reported duration, which only has a
resolution of 1 second.

	Old		New		Diff
SSD	455.3		466.332		+2.42%
HDD	103.927 	98.012		-5.69%

Comprehensive test methodology is in the cover letter of the patch.

Signed-off-by: default avatarQu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
parent dcf62b20
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment