From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
"xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:55:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111101105553.GG5819@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111031113321.GA30890@localhost>
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 07:33:21PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > //regression
> > 3) much increased cpu %user and %system for btrfs
>
> Sorry I find out that the CPU time regressions for btrfs are caused by
> some additional trace events enabled on btrfs (for debugging an
> unrelated btrfs hang bug) which results in 7 times more trace event
> lines:
>
> 2701238 /export/writeback/thresh=1000M/btrfs-1dd-4k-8p-2941M-1000M:10-3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-nfs-wq5-next-20111014+
> 19054054 /export/writeback/thresh=1000M/btrfs-1dd-4k-8p-2941M-1000M:10-3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-per-zone-dirty-next-20111014+
>
> So no real regressions.
Phew :-)
> Besides, the patchset also performs good on random writes:
>
> 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-nfs-wq5-next-20111014+ 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-per-zone-dirty-next-20111014+
> ------------------------ ------------------------
> 1.65 -5.1% 1.57 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/btrfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 18.65 -6.4% 17.46 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/ext3-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 2.09 +1.2% 2.12 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/ext4-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 2.49 -0.3% 2.48 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/xfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 51.35 +0.0% 51.36 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/btrfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 45.20 +0.5% 45.43 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/ext3-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 44.77 +0.7% 45.10 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/ext4-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 45.11 +2.5% 46.23 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/xfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 211.31 +0.2% 211.74 TOTAL write_bw
Hmm, mmapped IO page allocations are not annotated yet, so I expect
this to be just runtime variations?
> And writes to USB key:
>
> 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-nfs-wq5-next-20111014+ 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-per-zone-dirty-next-20111014+
> ------------------------ ------------------------
> 5.94 +0.8% 5.99 UKEY-thresh=1G/btrfs-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 2.64 -0.8% 2.62 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext3-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 5.10 +0.3% 5.12 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext3-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 3.26 -0.8% 3.24 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext3-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 5.63 -0.5% 5.60 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext4-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 6.04 -0.1% 6.04 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext4-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 5.90 -0.2% 5.88 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext4-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 2.45 +22.6% 3.00 UKEY-thresh=1G/xfs-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 6.18 -0.4% 6.16 UKEY-thresh=1G/xfs-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 4.81 +0.0% 4.81 UKEY-thresh=1G/xfs-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 47.94 +1.1% 48.45 TOTAL write_bw
>
> In summary, I see no problem at all in these trivial writeback tests.
>
> Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:55:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111101105553.GG5819@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111031113321.GA30890@localhost>
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 07:33:21PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > //regression
> > 3) much increased cpu %user and %system for btrfs
>
> Sorry I find out that the CPU time regressions for btrfs are caused by
> some additional trace events enabled on btrfs (for debugging an
> unrelated btrfs hang bug) which results in 7 times more trace event
> lines:
>
> 2701238 /export/writeback/thresh=1000M/btrfs-1dd-4k-8p-2941M-1000M:10-3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-nfs-wq5-next-20111014+
> 19054054 /export/writeback/thresh=1000M/btrfs-1dd-4k-8p-2941M-1000M:10-3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-per-zone-dirty-next-20111014+
>
> So no real regressions.
Phew :-)
> Besides, the patchset also performs good on random writes:
>
> 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-nfs-wq5-next-20111014+ 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-per-zone-dirty-next-20111014+
> ------------------------ ------------------------
> 1.65 -5.1% 1.57 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/btrfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 18.65 -6.4% 17.46 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/ext3-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 2.09 +1.2% 2.12 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/ext4-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 2.49 -0.3% 2.48 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/xfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 51.35 +0.0% 51.36 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/btrfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 45.20 +0.5% 45.43 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/ext3-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 44.77 +0.7% 45.10 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/ext4-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 45.11 +2.5% 46.23 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/xfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 211.31 +0.2% 211.74 TOTAL write_bw
Hmm, mmapped IO page allocations are not annotated yet, so I expect
this to be just runtime variations?
> And writes to USB key:
>
> 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-nfs-wq5-next-20111014+ 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-per-zone-dirty-next-20111014+
> ------------------------ ------------------------
> 5.94 +0.8% 5.99 UKEY-thresh=1G/btrfs-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 2.64 -0.8% 2.62 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext3-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 5.10 +0.3% 5.12 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext3-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 3.26 -0.8% 3.24 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext3-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 5.63 -0.5% 5.60 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext4-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 6.04 -0.1% 6.04 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext4-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 5.90 -0.2% 5.88 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext4-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 2.45 +22.6% 3.00 UKEY-thresh=1G/xfs-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 6.18 -0.4% 6.16 UKEY-thresh=1G/xfs-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 4.81 +0.0% 4.81 UKEY-thresh=1G/xfs-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 47.94 +1.1% 48.45 TOTAL write_bw
>
> In summary, I see no problem at all in these trivial writeback tests.
>
> Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
"xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:55:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111101105553.GG5819@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111031113321.GA30890@localhost>
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 07:33:21PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > //regression
> > 3) much increased cpu %user and %system for btrfs
>
> Sorry I find out that the CPU time regressions for btrfs are caused by
> some additional trace events enabled on btrfs (for debugging an
> unrelated btrfs hang bug) which results in 7 times more trace event
> lines:
>
> 2701238 /export/writeback/thresh=1000M/btrfs-1dd-4k-8p-2941M-1000M:10-3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-nfs-wq5-next-20111014+
> 19054054 /export/writeback/thresh=1000M/btrfs-1dd-4k-8p-2941M-1000M:10-3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-per-zone-dirty-next-20111014+
>
> So no real regressions.
Phew :-)
> Besides, the patchset also performs good on random writes:
>
> 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-nfs-wq5-next-20111014+ 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-per-zone-dirty-next-20111014+
> ------------------------ ------------------------
> 1.65 -5.1% 1.57 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/btrfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 18.65 -6.4% 17.46 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/ext3-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 2.09 +1.2% 2.12 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/ext4-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 2.49 -0.3% 2.48 MMAP-RANDWRITE-4K/xfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_4k-4k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 51.35 +0.0% 51.36 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/btrfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 45.20 +0.5% 45.43 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/ext3-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 44.77 +0.7% 45.10 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/ext4-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 45.11 +2.5% 46.23 MMAP-RANDWRITE-64K/xfs-fio_fat_mmap_randwrite_64k-64k-8p-4096M-20:10-X
> 211.31 +0.2% 211.74 TOTAL write_bw
Hmm, mmapped IO page allocations are not annotated yet, so I expect
this to be just runtime variations?
> And writes to USB key:
>
> 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-nfs-wq5-next-20111014+ 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-per-zone-dirty-next-20111014+
> ------------------------ ------------------------
> 5.94 +0.8% 5.99 UKEY-thresh=1G/btrfs-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 2.64 -0.8% 2.62 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext3-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 5.10 +0.3% 5.12 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext3-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 3.26 -0.8% 3.24 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext3-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 5.63 -0.5% 5.60 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext4-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 6.04 -0.1% 6.04 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext4-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 5.90 -0.2% 5.88 UKEY-thresh=1G/ext4-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 2.45 +22.6% 3.00 UKEY-thresh=1G/xfs-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 6.18 -0.4% 6.16 UKEY-thresh=1G/xfs-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 4.81 +0.0% 4.81 UKEY-thresh=1G/xfs-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 47.94 +1.1% 48.45 TOTAL write_bw
>
> In summary, I see no problem at all in these trivial writeback tests.
>
> Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-01 10:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-30 7:17 [patch 0/5] per-zone dirty limits v3 Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` [patch 1/5] mm: exclude reserved pages from dirtyable memory Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 13:53 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 13:53 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 13:53 ` Michal Hocko
2011-10-01 7:10 ` Minchan Kim
2011-10-01 7:10 ` Minchan Kim
2011-10-01 7:10 ` Minchan Kim
2011-10-03 11:22 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-03 11:22 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-03 11:22 ` Mel Gorman
2011-09-30 7:17 ` [patch 2/5] mm: writeback: cleanups in preparation for per-zone dirty limits Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 13:56 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 13:56 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 13:56 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 7:17 ` [patch 3/5] mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:35 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-30 7:35 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-30 7:35 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-30 7:35 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-09-30 8:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 8:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 8:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 8:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 8:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 14:28 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 14:28 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 14:28 ` Michal Hocko
2011-10-28 20:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-28 20:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-28 20:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-31 11:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-31 11:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-31 11:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-11-01 10:55 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2011-11-01 10:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-11-01 10:55 ` Johannes Weiner
[not found] ` <20111027155618.GA25524@localhost>
[not found] ` <20111027161359.GA1319@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <20111027204743.GA19343@localhost>
[not found] ` <20111027221258.GA22869@localhost>
[not found] ` <20111027231933.GB1319@redhat.com>
2011-10-28 20:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-28 20:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-11-01 10:52 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-11-01 10:52 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-11-01 10:52 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` [patch 4/5] mm: filemap: pass __GFP_WRITE from grab_cache_page_write_begin() Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 14:41 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 14:41 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 14:41 ` Michal Hocko
2011-09-30 7:17 ` [patch 5/5] Btrfs: pass __GFP_WRITE for buffered write page allocations Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-30 7:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-10-03 11:25 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-03 11:25 ` Mel Gorman
2011-10-03 11:25 ` Mel Gorman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-11-23 13:34 [patch 0/5] mm: per-zone dirty limits v3-resend Johannes Weiner
2011-11-23 13:34 ` [patch 3/5] mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones Johannes Weiner
2011-11-23 13:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-11-24 1:07 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-11-24 1:07 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-11-24 13:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-11-24 13:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-11-25 1:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-11-25 1:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
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=20111101105553.GG5819@redhat.com \
--to=jweiner@redhat.com \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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.