From: Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Neeraj Singh <email@example.com> Cc: Jeff Hostetler <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, "Neeraj K. Singh" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] read-cache: make the index write buffer size 128K Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 04:51:24 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CANQDOdeEd=JjWL4gb5CWHL_HkvJMnFumW74ew4DXJahh4BKvfQ@mail.gmail.com> Neeraj Singh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >> >> -#define WRITE_BUFFER_SIZE 8192 >> >> +#define WRITE_BUFFER_SIZE (128 * 1024) >> >> static unsigned char write_buffer[WRITE_BUFFER_SIZE]; >> >> static unsigned long write_buffer_len; >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > Very nice. >> >> I wonder if we gain more by going say 4M buffer size or even larger? >> >> Is this something we can make the system auto-tune itself? This is >> not about reading but writing, so we already have enough information >> to estimate how much we would need to write out. >> >> Thanks. >> > > Hi Junio, > At some point the cost of the memcpy into the filesystem cache begins to > dominate the cost of the system call, so increasing the buffer size > has diminishing returns. Yes, I know that kind of "general principle". If I recall correctly, we used to pass too large a buffer to a single write(2) system call (I do not know if it was for the index---I suspect it was for some other data), and found out that it made response to ^C take too long, and tuned the buffer size down. I was asking where the sweet spot for this codepath would be, and if we can take a measurement to make a better decision than "8k feels too small and 128k turns out to be better than 8k". It does not tell us if 128k would always do better than 64k or 256k, for example. I suspect that the sweet spot would be dependent on many parameters (not just the operating system, but also relative speed among memory, "disk", and cpu, and also the size of the index) and if we can devise a way to auto-tune it so that we do not have to worry about it. Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-21 12:52 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-02-18 2:48 Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget 2021-02-19 19:12 ` Jeff Hostetler 2021-02-20 3:28 ` Junio C Hamano 2021-02-20 7:56 ` Neeraj Singh 2021-02-21 12:51 ` Junio C Hamano [this message] 2021-02-24 20:56 ` Neeraj Singh 2021-02-25 5:41 ` Junio C Hamano 2021-02-25 6:58 ` Chris Torek 2021-02-25 7:16 ` Junio C Hamano 2021-02-25 7:36 ` Neeraj Singh 2021-02-25 7:57 ` Chris Torek
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] read-cache: make the index write buffer size 128K' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).