From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Andrew Klaassen <clawsoon@yahoo.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Prioritizing readdirplus/getattr/lookup
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 17:20:03 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110508212003.GA29337@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <521591.18062.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:32:38AM -0700, Andrew Klaassen wrote:
> I've done some more benchmarking, and in my case writes appear to *not* be the culprit.
>
> Having the HPC farm only reading files (with noatime set everywhere, of course) actually makes "ls -l" over NFS slightly ~slower~.
Do you know which part of 'ls -l' is taking longer? The readdir, or the
stats? (Would an strace determine it?) Probably the latter, I guess.
(Apologies if you already said.)
> Having the HPC farm only reading files that all fit in the server's cache makes "ls -l" over NFS yet slower. (I watched iostat while this was running to make sure that nothing was being written to or read from disk.)
>
> So I've eliminated the disk as a bottleneck, and (as per my earlier emails) I've eliminated the filesystem and VM system.
>
> It really does look at this point like nfsd is the choke point.
So I suppose the replies are likely waiting to be sent back over the tcp
connection to the client, and waiting behind big read replies?
As a check I wonder if there's any cheesy way we could prioritize
threads waiting to send back getattr requests over threads waiting to
send back reads.
Such threads are waiting on the xpt_mutex. Is there some mutex or
semaphore variant that gives us control over the order things are woken
up in, or would we need our own?
--b.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-08 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <8114CB12-77A9-47DB-A396-E30A4BF3742A@oracle.com>
2011-04-04 23:59 ` Fwd: Prioritizing readdirplus/getattr/lookup Chuck Lever
2011-04-05 16:32 ` Andrew Klaassen
2011-05-08 21:20 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110508212003.GA29337@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=clawsoon@yahoo.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.