From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Btrfs v0.16 released Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:27:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20080816192749.GA8774@mit.edu> References: <1218221293.15342.263.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <1218747656.15342.439.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20080814234458.GD13048@mit.edu> <1218762627.15342.447.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <1218804361.15342.470.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20080815134545.GM13048@mit.edu> <1218822772.15342.503.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20080815195941.GB22395@mit.edu> <1218832622.19495.14.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <1218910210.19495.25.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , linux-btrfs , linux-kernel , linux-fsdevel To: Chris Mason Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:42228 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750930AbYHPT14 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:27:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1218910210.19495.25.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 02:10:10PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > I tried just the writeback_index patch and got only 4 fragmented files > on ext4 after a compilebench run. Then I tried again and got 1200. > Seems there is something timing dependent in here ;) > Yeah, the patch Aneesh sent to change where we added the inode to the dirty list was false lead. The right fix is in the ext4 patch queue now. I think we have the problem licked and a quick test showed it increased the compilebench MB/s by a very tiny amount (enough so that I wasnt sure whether or not it was measurement error), but it does avoid the needly fragmentation. - Ted