From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] writeback: Improve busyloop prevention
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:13:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111207101346.GA4622@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111205080243.GA14799@localhost>
Hello Fengguang,
On Mon 05-12-11 16:02:43, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:50:44PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 09-11-11 00:52:07, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > wfg@bee /export/writeback% ./compare.rb -v jsize -e io_wkB_s thresh*/*-ioless-full-next-20111102+ thresh*/*-20111102+
> > > > 3.1.0-ioless-full-next-20111102+ 3.1.0-ioless-full-bg-all-next-20111102+
> > > > ------------------------ ------------------------
> > > > 36231.89 -3.8% 34855.10 thresh=1000M/ext3-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1000M:10-X
> > > > 41115.07 -12.7% 35886.36 thresh=1000M/ext3-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1000M:10-X
> > > > 48025.75 -14.3% 41146.57 thresh=1000M/ext3-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1000M:10-X
> > > > 47684.35 -6.4% 44644.30 thresh=1000M/ext4-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1000M:10-X
> > > > 54015.86 -4.0% 51851.01 thresh=1000M/ext4-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1000M:10-X
> > > > 55320.03 -2.6% 53867.63 thresh=1000M/ext4-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1000M:10-X
> > > > 37400.51 +1.6% 38012.57 thresh=100M/ext3-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-X
> > > > 45317.31 -4.5% 43272.16 thresh=100M/ext3-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-X
> > > > 40552.64 +0.8% 40884.60 thresh=100M/ext3-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-X
> > > > 44271.29 -5.6% 41789.76 thresh=100M/ext4-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-X
> > > > 54334.22 -3.5% 52435.69 thresh=100M/ext4-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-X
> > > > 52563.67 -6.1% 49341.84 thresh=100M/ext4-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-100M:10-X
> > > > 45027.95 -1.0% 44599.37 thresh=10M/ext3-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-10M:10-X
> > > > 42478.40 +0.3% 42608.48 thresh=10M/ext3-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-10M:10-X
> > > > 35178.47 -0.2% 35103.56 thresh=10M/ext4-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-10M:10-X
> > > > 54079.64 -0.5% 53834.85 thresh=10M/ext4-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-10M:10-X
> > > > 49982.11 -0.4% 49803.44 thresh=10M/ext4-2dd-4k-8p-4096M-10M:10-X
> > > > 783579.17 -3.8% 753937.28 TOTAL io_wkB_s
> > > Here I can see some noticeable drops in the realistic thresh=100M case
> > > (case thresh=1000M is unrealistic but it still surprise me that there are
> > > drops as well). I'll try to reproduce your results so that I can look into
> > > this more effectively.
> > So I've run a test on a machine with 1G of memory, thresh=184M (so
> > something similar to your 4G-1G test). I've used tiobench using 10 threads,
> > each thread writing 1.6G file. I have run the test 10 times to get an idea
> > of fluctuations. The result is:
> > without patch with patch
> > AVG STDDEV AVG STDDEV
> > 199.884820 +- 1.32268 200.466003 +- 0.377405
> >
> > The numbers are time-to-completion so lower is better. Summary is: No
> > statistically meaningful difference. I'll run more tests with different
> > dirty thresholds to see whether I won't be able to observe some
> > difference...
>
> I carried out some tests on ext3/ext4 before/after patch. Most tests
> are repeated for 3 times so as to get an idea about the variations.
>
> The ":jsize=8" notion means "-J size=8" in action.
>
> The overall deltas are -0.3% for ext4 and -3.3% for ext3. I noticed
> that the regressions mostly happen for the "-J size=8" cases. For
> normal mkfs, ext4 actually sees +2.5% increase and ext3 sees only
> -0.8% drop.
>
> I don't find any misbehaves in the graphs.
> So in general I think the test results are acceptable.
Thanks for running the tests. I looked through the results and given the
variation I would be happy with them. Will you merge the patch or should I
resend it?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-07 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-12 20:57 [PATCH 0/2 v4] writeback: Improve busyloop prevention and inode requeueing Jan Kara
2011-10-12 20:57 ` [PATCH 1/2] writeback: Improve busyloop prevention Jan Kara
2011-10-13 14:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-13 20:13 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-14 7:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-10-14 19:31 ` Chris Mason
[not found] ` <20111013143939.GA9691@localhost>
2011-10-13 20:18 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-14 16:00 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-14 16:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-18 0:51 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-18 14:35 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-19 11:56 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-19 13:25 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-19 13:30 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-19 13:35 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 12:09 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 12:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 13:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 22:26 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-22 4:20 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-24 15:45 ` Jan Kara
[not found] ` <20111027063133.GA10146@localhost>
2011-10-27 20:31 ` Jan Kara
[not found] ` <20111101134231.GA31718@localhost>
2011-11-01 21:53 ` Jan Kara
2011-11-02 17:25 ` Wu Fengguang
[not found] ` <20111102185603.GA4034@localhost>
2011-11-03 1:51 ` Jan Kara
2011-11-03 14:52 ` Wu Fengguang
[not found] ` <20111104152054.GA11577@localhost>
2011-11-08 23:52 ` Jan Kara
2011-11-09 13:51 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-11-10 14:50 ` Jan Kara
2011-12-05 8:02 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-07 10:13 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2011-12-07 11:45 ` Wu Fengguang
[not found] ` <20111027064745.GA14017@localhost>
2011-10-27 20:50 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 9:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-10-20 15:32 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-15 12:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-12 20:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] writeback: Replace some redirty_tail() calls with requeue_io() Jan Kara
2011-10-13 14:30 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-13 14:15 ` [PATCH 0/2 v4] writeback: Improve busyloop prevention and inode requeueing Wu Fengguang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-10-05 17:58 [PATCH 0/2] Avoid putting of writeback of inodes for too long (v3) Jan Kara
2011-10-05 17:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] writeback: Improve busyloop prevention Jan Kara
2011-09-08 0:44 Jan Kara
2011-09-08 0:57 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-09-08 13:49 ` Jan Kara
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=20111207101346.GA4622@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@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.