All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sebastien Buisson <sebastien.buisson@bull.net>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow increasing the buffer-head per-CPU LRU size
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:28:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53BB8F7C.1060505@bull.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140707224634.GE18735@two.firstfloor.org>


>> Can anyone demonstrate why we shouldn't just do
>
> I was assuming due to memory usage: with 4K blocks 32K->64K
>

Moreover, performance gain was not that satisfactory on ext4 when 
increasing BH_LRU_SIZE to 16.
Here are the performances I got with:
(a) mdtest on ramdisk device, single shared dir, with large ACL and SELinux
(b) mdtest on ramdisk device, single shared dir, with large ACL but NO 
SELinux

(results show performance gain in percentage when increasing BH_LRU_SIZE 
to 16)

(a)
files       tasks     dir size     Creation   Stat     Removal
1000000      1     	  0          -8,7        -2,7     -0,5
1000000      1       100000          -5,2        -0,5     -1,1
1000000      1       500000          -5,1        -3,7     -1,5
1000000      1      2000000          -5,1        -4,0     -8,5
1000000      1      5000000          -4,2        -5,3     -10,2
1000000      1     10000000          -3,5        -8,0     -10,9
1000000      8            0          -0,3        -3,8     -1,2
1000000      8       100000          -1,2        -3,7     -1,5
1000000      8       500000           0,5        -3,2     -5,3
1000000      8      2000000          -1,7        -6,1     -8,7
1000000      8      5000000          -5,9        -7,7     -11,9
1000000      8     10000000          -4,1        -8,8     -13,6

(b)
files      tasks     dir size     Creation   Stat     Removal
1000000      1           0            0,0        -0,9     -1,1
1000000      1      100000            1,0        -3,0     -3,5
1000000      1      500000            3,7        -3,0     -2,4
1000000      1     2000000            1,1         3,6     -0,2
1000000      1     5000000            3,5         0,1      5,9
1000000      1    10000000            9,0         3,8      6,4
1000000      8           0            2,4        -1,2     -4,3
1000000      8      100000           -0,2        -1,8     -2,4
1000000      8      500000            1,1        -0,3      2,0
1000000      8     2000000           -0,3        -2,8     -3,3
1000000      8     5000000            0,3        -3,1     -1,3
1000000      8    10000000            1,5         0,0      0,7


To compare with the performances I got on Lustre with:
(c) mds-survey on ramdisk device, quota enabled, shared directory
(d) mds-survey on ramdisk device, quota enabled, directory per process

(c)
fi         dir     threads     create   lookup   destroy
1000000     1        1          11,3      1,2      7,2
1000000     1        2           6,4      2,3      6,9
1000000     1        4           1,9      3,0      1,3
1000000     1        8          -0,6      4,3      0,7
1000000     1       16           0,5      4,4      0,6

(d)
files      dir     threads     create   lookup   destroy
1000000     4       4            3,2     28,5      5,3
1000000     8       8            1,2     33,9      2,0
1000000    16      16            0,6      7,9     -0,2


Sebastien.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-07-08  6:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-04  8:38 [PATCH] Allow increasing the buffer-head per-CPU LRU size Sebastien Buisson
2014-07-05  7:44 ` Andreas Mohr
2014-07-06 16:18 ` Andi Kleen
2014-07-07 10:32   ` Sebastien Buisson
2014-07-07 16:30     ` Andi Kleen
2014-07-07 16:30       ` Andi Kleen
2014-07-07 22:29       ` Andrew Morton
2014-07-07 22:46         ` Andi Kleen
2014-07-08  6:28           ` Sebastien Buisson [this message]
2014-07-10  6:51             ` Sebastien Buisson
2014-07-10  7:07               ` Andrew Morton
2014-07-10  7:29                 ` Sebastien Buisson
2014-07-10  7:29                   ` Sebastien Buisson
2014-07-10 14:17                   ` Andi Kleen
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-06-27 12:25 Sebastien Buisson
2014-06-24 15:52 Sebastien Buisson
2014-06-25 22:16 ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-26 11:44   ` Sebastien Buisson
2014-06-26 21:37     ` Andrew Morton

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=53BB8F7C.1060505@bull.net \
    --to=sebastien.buisson@bull.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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.