From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: write-behind on streaming writes Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:06:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20120607190613.GC18538@redhat.com> References: <20120605172302.GB28556@redhat.com> <20120605174157.GC28556@redhat.com> <20120605184853.GD28556@redhat.com> <20120605201045.GE28556@redhat.com> <20120606025729.GA1197@redhat.com> <20120606121408.GB4934@redhat.com> <20120606140058.GA8098@localhost> <20120606170428.GB8133@redhat.com> <20120607094504.GB25074@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Fengguang Wu , Linus Torvalds , LKML , "Myklebust, Trond" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Memory Management List , Jens Axboe To: Jan Kara Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120607094504.GB25074@quack.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:45:04AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: [..] > > Instead of above, I modified sync_file_range() to call > > __filemap_fdatawrite_range(WB_SYNC_NONE) and I do see now ASYNC writes > > showing up at elevator. > > > > With 4 processes doing sync_file_range() now, firefox start time test > > clocks around 18-19 seconds which is better than 30-35 seconds of 4 > > processes doing buffered writes. And system looks pretty good from > > interactivity point of view. > So do you have any idea why is that? Do we drive shallower queues? Also > how does speed of the writers compare to the speed with normal buffered > writes + fsync (you'd need fsync for sync_file_range writers as well to > make comparison fair)? Ok, I did more tests and few odd things I noticed. - Results are varying a lot. Sometimes with write+flush workload also firefox launched fast. So now it is hard to conclude things. - For some reason I had nr_requests as 16K on my root drive. I have no idea who is setting it. Once I set it to 128, then firefox with write+flush workload performs much better and launch time are similar to sync_file_range. - I tried to open new windows in firefox and browse web, load new websites. I would say sync_file_range() feels little better but I don't have any logical explanation and can't conclude anything yet by looking at traces. I am continuing to stare though. So in summary, at this point of time I really can't conclude that using sync_file_range() with ASYNC request is providing better latencies in my setup. I will keept at it though and if I notice something new, will write back. Thanks Vivek -- 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