Re: [PATCH] readahead:add blk_run_backing_dev

Andrew Morton
2009-05-26T23:42:44Z

On Fri, 22 May 2009 10:33:23 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> 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.