From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] writeback: avoid touching dirtied_when on blocked inodes
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:46:07 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111022074607.GA4720@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111022053851.GA23033@localhost>
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 01:38:51PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:11:35AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > btw, with the I_SYNC case converted, it's actually no longer necessary
> > > > to keep a standalone b_more_io_wait. It should still be better to keep
> > > > the list and the above error check for catching possible errors and
> > > > the flexibility of adding policies like "don't retry possible blocked
> > > > inodes in N seconds as long as there are other inodes to work with".
> > > >
> > > > The below diff only intends to show the _possibility_ to remove
> > > > b_more_io_wait:
> > > Good observation. So should we introduce b_more_io_wait in the end? We
> > > could always introduce it when the need for some more complicated policy
> > > comes...
> > >
> >
> > I have no problem removing it if you liked it more. Anyway, let me
> > test the idea out first (just kicked off the tests).
>
> When removing b_more_io_wait, performance is slightly dropped
> comparing to the full more_io_wait patchset.
>
> 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-more_io_wait-next-20111014+ 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-more_io_wait-x-next-20111014+
> ------------------------ ------------------------
> 45.30 +6.3% 48.14 thresh=1G/ext3-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 48.23 -2.0% 47.27 thresh=1G/ext4-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 54.21 -2.6% 52.80 thresh=1G/ext4-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 56.07 -0.3% 55.91 thresh=1G/ext4-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 45.12 -5.8% 42.49 thresh=1G/xfs-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 53.94 -1.2% 53.27 thresh=1G/xfs-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 55.66 -0.1% 55.63 thresh=1G/xfs-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
> 358.53 -0.8% 355.51 TOTAL write_bw
>
> I'll try to reduce the changes and retest.
Unfortunately, the reduced patches 1-4 + I_SYNC change + remove
requeue_more_io_wait combination still performances noticeably worse:
3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-next-20111014+ 3.1.0-rc9-ioless-full-more_io_wait-x2-next-20111014+
------------------------ ------------------------
49.84 -7.9% 45.91 thresh=1G/ext4-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
56.03 -7.2% 52.01 thresh=1G/ext4-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
57.42 -1.7% 56.45 thresh=1G/ext4-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
45.74 -2.8% 44.48 thresh=1G/xfs-100dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
54.19 -4.8% 51.57 thresh=1G/xfs-10dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
55.93 -2.2% 54.70 thresh=1G/xfs-1dd-4k-8p-4096M-1024M:10-X
319.14 -4.4% 305.12 TOTAL write_bw
Thanks,
Fengguang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-22 7:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-20 15:22 [PATCH 0/7] writeback: avoid touching dirtied_when on blocked inodes Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 1/7] writeback: introduce queue b_more_io_wait Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:23 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 2/7] writeback: avoid redirtying when ->write_inode failed to clear I_DIRTY Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:24 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 3/7] writeback: update wb->last_active on written pages/inodes Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 4/7] writeback: Retry kupdate work early if we need to retry some inode writeback Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 5/7] writeback: requeue_io_wait() on pages_skipped inode Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:25 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 6/7] writeback: requeue_io_wait() on blocked inode Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:31 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 15:22 ` [PATCH 7/7] writeback: requeue_io_wait() when failed to grab superblock Wu Fengguang
2011-10-20 23:25 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-20 23:21 ` [PATCH 0/7] writeback: avoid touching dirtied_when on blocked inodes Jan Kara
2011-10-21 10:40 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-21 19:54 ` Jan Kara
2011-10-22 3:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-22 5:38 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-22 6:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-22 7:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-10-22 7:46 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2011-10-22 4:46 ` Wu Fengguang
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=20111022074607.GA4720@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).