Re: [PATCH RFC] jbd: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>]

On 1/11/13 1:03 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 11-01-13 10:42:00, Eric Sandeen wrote:

...

>> TBH though, this is somewhat opposite of what I'd expect; I thought more
>> wakes might mean smaller transactions - except the wakes were "pointless"
>> - so I'm not quite sure what's going on yet.  We can certainly see the
>> difference, though, and that my change gets us back to the prior
>> behavior.
>   Yes, that's what I'd expect if the difference was really in IO. But
> apparently the benchmark is CPU bound on the machine and so the higher
> amount of work we do under j_state_lock (wake_up() has some small
> cost after all - it disables interrupts and takes q->lock) results in
> kjournald taking longer to wake and do its work. It might be interesting to
> know about how many useless wakeups are we speaking here?

Yeah, I want to get that next.

I think I'll need to instrument the module to get that, the fear is that
systemtap might have too much overhead (but I can try both ways).

Thanks,
-Eric

> 								Honza
>