From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Pratt Subject: Re: New experimental btrfs branch ready for testing Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:46:17 -0500 Message-ID: <4A366CC9.8000603@austin.ibm.com> References: <20090601210447.GC3890@think> <4A281A3C.6000006@austin.ibm.com> <20090605142008.GB6942@think> <4A294194.6050006@austin.ibm.com> <4A298DDB.6070002@austin.ibm.com> <20090606002021.GE3824@think> <4A2A9B95.5050604@austin.ibm.com> <20090609152639.GB9556@think> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed To: Chris Mason , Steven Pratt , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090609152639.GB9556@think> List-ID: Chris Mason wrote: > On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 11:38:45AM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote: > >> No problem. Raid results are uploading to >> http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/history/History.html now. >> There were massive improvements in the random write workloads, >> especially with cow enabled!! MailServer had moderate perf gains, but >> dramatic decrease in CPU utilization, so this is very good as well. >> >> The only regression I see is on large file creates, CPU is up 200% or >> more while performance is fairly flat. btrfs_tree_lock now dominates >> the profile. >> > > I'm not able to reproduce the btrfs_tree_lock usage that you're seeing. > Could you please use the callgraph option to oprofile? > Ok, back from vacation and have re-engaged my brain :-) Was thinking I would have to re-run this for you, but we already have callgraph data for all the runs. For the 128 thread create workload it is here: http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid//2-6-30-rc7-newformat/btrfs-6-2-newformat/btrfs1.ffsb.large_file_creates__threads_0128.09-06-04_01.23.30/analysis/oprofile.breakout.001/oprofile-callgraph Steve > -chris >