From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Andrew Klaassen <clawsoon@yahoo.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Prioritizing readdirplus/getattr/lookup
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 17:20:03 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110508212003.GA29337@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <521591.18062.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:32:38AM -0700, Andrew Klaassen wrote:
> I've done some more benchmarking, and in my case writes appear to *not* be the culprit.
>
> Having the HPC farm only reading files (with noatime set everywhere, of course) actually makes "ls -l" over NFS slightly ~slower~.
Do you know which part of 'ls -l' is taking longer? The readdir, or the
stats? (Would an strace determine it?) Probably the latter, I guess.
(Apologies if you already said.)
> Having the HPC farm only reading files that all fit in the server's cache makes "ls -l" over NFS yet slower. (I watched iostat while this was running to make sure that nothing was being written to or read from disk.)
>
> So I've eliminated the disk as a bottleneck, and (as per my earlier emails) I've eliminated the filesystem and VM system.
>
> It really does look at this point like nfsd is the choke point.
So I suppose the replies are likely waiting to be sent back over the tcp
connection to the client, and waiting behind big read replies?
As a check I wonder if there's any cheesy way we could prioritize
threads waiting to send back getattr requests over threads waiting to
send back reads.
Such threads are waiting on the xpt_mutex. Is there some mutex or
semaphore variant that gives us control over the order things are woken
up in, or would we need our own?
--b.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-08 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <8114CB12-77A9-47DB-A396-E30A4BF3742A@oracle.com>
2011-04-04 23:59 ` Fwd: Prioritizing readdirplus/getattr/lookup Chuck Lever
2011-04-05 16:32 ` Andrew Klaassen
2011-05-08 21:20 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
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=20110508212003.GA29337@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=clawsoon@yahoo.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@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).