From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfs: writeback pages wait queue
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:54:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111023155439.GA7286@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111020160530.GC7054@localhost>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --]
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:05:30AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Trond,
>
> After applying these two patches, the IO-less patchset performances
> 45% better than the vanilla kernel and the average commit size only
> decreases by -16% in the common NFS-thresh=1G/nfs-1dd case :)
To better understand how the NFS writeback wait queue helps, I
visualized the network traffic over time. Attached are the graphs for
the vanilla kernel and the one with the IO-less + NFS wait queue
patches.
nfs-1dd-4k-32p-32016M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-vanilla+/dstat-bw.png
nfs-1dd-4k-32p-31951M-1024M:10-3.1.0-rc8-nfs-wq4+/dstat-bw.png
The obvious difference is, the network traffic become now more
distributed and the "zero traffic" periods are mostly reduced.
The other 2dd, 10dd cases have similar results.
Thanks,
Fengguang
[-- Attachment #2: dstat-bw.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 23197 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #3: dstat-bw.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 22149 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-23 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-20 15:55 [PATCH 1/2] nfs: writeback pages wait queue Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 15:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 15:56 ` [PATCH 2/2] nfs: scale writeback threshold proportional to dirty threshold Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 15:56 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 16:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] nfs: writeback pages wait queue Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 16:05 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-22 7:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-23 15:54 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2011-10-25 21:08 ` Wu Fengguang
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=20111023155439.GA7286@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arighi@develer.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/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.