Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v9

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Fri 05-06-09 20:18:15, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 11:14:38PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Fri 05-06-09 21:15:28, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 05 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > The result with noop is even more impressive.
> > > > 
> > > > See: http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/frederic/dbench-noop.pdf
> > > > 
> > > > Also a comparison, noop with pdflush against noop with bdi writeback:
> > > > 
> > > > http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/frederic/dbench-noop-cmp.pdf
> > > 
> > > OK, so things aren't exactly peachy here to begin with. It may not
> > > actually BE an issue, or at least now a new one, but that doesn't mean
> > > that we should not attempt to quantify the impact.
> >   What looks interesting is also the overall throughput. With pdflush we
> > get to 2.5 MB/s + 26 MB/s while with per-bdi we get to 2.7 MB/s + 13 MB/s.
> > So per-bdi seems to be *more* fair but throughput suffers a lot (which
> > might be inevitable due to incurred seeks).
> >   Frederic, how much does dbench achieve for you just on one partition
> > (test both consecutively if possible) with as many threads as have those
> > two dbench instances together? Thanks.
> 
> Is the graph showing us dbench tput or disk tput?  I'm assuming it is
> disk tput, so bdi may just be writing less?
  Good, question. I was assuming dbench throughput :).

									Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR