All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Duncan Sands <duncan.sands@math.u-psud.fr>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: fsync 50 times slower after 2.5.27
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:22:30 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D8A4016.F364B303@digeo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200209192032.25933.duncan.sands@math.u-psud.fr

Duncan Sands wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 19 September 2002 02:35, you wrote:
> > Duncan Sands wrote:
> > > I noticed a performance degradation in recent kernels:
> > > fsync takes around 50 times longer in kernels 2.5.28 to
> > > 2.5.34 when the system is under heavy load, as compared
> > > to kernels <= 2.5.27.  I noticed this because it makes kmail
> > > unusable.  2.5.34 is the most recent kernel I tested.
> >
> > Please try replacing the yield() in fs/jbd/transaction.c
> > with
> >
> >       set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> >       schedule();
> 
> OK!  This seems to fix the problem for 2.5.36.  I will also
> test it for 2.5.34 since I didn't test 2.5.36 as rigourously
> as 2.5.34 for the presence of the problem without the patch.

(I dragged you back onto the mailing list)

Thanks for testing.  The semantics of sched_yield() have changed
significantly in 2.5.  Probably correctly, but it is breaking a
few things which were tuned for the old semantics.  Amongst those
things are OpenOffice and, it seems, ext3 transaction batching.

The transaction batching does good things under some situations,
and we want it to keep working.  I'll sit tight for the while, see
where shed_yield() behaviour ends up.  If we still have a problem
then probably a schedule_timeout(1) in there would suffice.

> I will also test using ext2 (does ext2 use transaction.c?).

No. ext2 will not exhibit this problem.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-09-19 21:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-09-19  0:22 fsync 50 times slower after 2.5.27 Duncan Sands
2002-09-19  0:35 ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-19  1:00   ` 2.4.20-pre7-ac2 compile and IrDA Alexander Hoogerhuis
2002-09-19  1:25     ` Alan Cox
2002-09-19  1:33       ` David S. Miller
2002-09-19 10:45         ` Alan Cox
2002-09-19 12:27           ` Alexander Hoogerhuis
2002-09-19  4:43       ` Willy Tarreau
2002-09-19  6:34       ` Alexander Hoogerhuis
     [not found]   ` <200209192032.25933.duncan.sands@math.u-psud.fr>
2002-09-19 21:22     ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-09-19 21:44       ` [Ext2-devel] Re: fsync 50 times slower after 2.5.27 Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-09-20 12:15       ` Duncan Sands

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=3D8A4016.F364B303@digeo.com \
    --to=akpm@digeo.com \
    --cc=duncan.sands@math.u-psud.fr \
    --cc=ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@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.