From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] readahead:add blk_run_backing_dev Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:42:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20090526164252.0741b392.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20090518183752.0581fdc0@172.19.0.2> <20090518175259.GL4140@kernel.dk> <20090520025123.GB8186@localhost> <6.0.0.20.2.20090521145005.06f81fe0@172.19.0.2> <20090522010538.GB6010@localhost> <6.0.0.20.2.20090522102551.0705aea0@172.19.0.2> <20090522023323.GA10864@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hifumi.hisashi@oss.ntt.co.jp, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com To: Wu Fengguang Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090522023323.GA10864@localhost> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 22 May 2009 10:33:23 +0800 Wu Fengguang wrote: > > I tested above patch, and I got same performance number. > > I wonder why if (PageUptodate(page)) check is there... > > Thanks! This is an interesting micro timing behavior that > demands some research work. The above check is to confirm if it's > the PageUptodate() case that makes the difference. So why that case > happens so frequently so as to impact the performance? Will it also > happen in NFS? > > The problem is readahead IO pipeline is not running smoothly, which is > undesirable and not well understood for now. The patch causes a remarkably large performance increase. A 9% reduction in time for a linear read? I'd be surprised if the workload even consumed 9% of a CPU, so where on earth has the kernel gone to? Have you been able to reproduce this in your testing? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org