From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p122AHnl258715 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:10:17 -0600 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id DFEFD1A64611 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CXHGVIOL3ZNXE7Cz for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:12:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:12:42 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfstests: Speed up test 042 Message-ID: <20110202021242.GP11040@dastard> References: <1295927937-20634-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1295927937-20634-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1296610209.2350.161.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1296610209.2350.161.camel@doink> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Elder Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:30:09PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 14:58 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > test 042 generates a worst-case fragmented filesystem and uses it to > > test xfs_fsr. It uses small 4k files to generate the hole-space-hole > > pattern that fragments free space badly. It is much faster to > > generate the same pattern by creating a single large file and > > punching holes in it. Also, instead of writing large files to > > create unfragmented space, just use preallocation so we don't have > > to write the data to disk. > > > > These changes reduce the runtime of the test on a single SATA drive > > from 106s to 27s. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > > Perhaps your test system is configured different > from mine, but I don't see the speedup you see. > In fact, it might have slowed it down. I really > haven't experimented much though and will report > back if I find anything more constructive to say. That may be because the resvsp call at the moment is a sync transaction. I've got a patch to make that async which should solve the problem for you. Mind you, the above numbers come from a Vm that wasn't running that patch, so it probably depends mostly on how efficient your storage is a processing barriers to the difference you see right now... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs