From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] reduce exclusive ilock hold times V2
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:52:01 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120327205201.GC5091@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120327143445.196524266@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:34:45AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This series tries to reduce the amount we hold the ilock exclusively,
> especially during direct I/O writes where they currently hurt us.
>
> Dave showed that his earlier version which is less aggressive than this
> one can already provide magnitudes of better throughput and iops for
> parallel direct I/O workloads, and this one should be even better.
>
> Changes from V1:
> - do not mark xfs_qm_need_dqattach as inline
> - various comment and commit message updates
Consider the whole series:
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> I specificly did not add the delalloc assert in the direct I/O write path
> in this series, as it triggers with or without this patch. I will look into
> that issue next.
I'm getting that assert (and other delalloc block asserts) when
fsstress is running quite often these days. I suspect that he lack
of IOLOCK synchronisation in .page_mkwrite is biting us here, but
I'm interested to know what you find...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-27 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-27 14:34 [PATCH 0/5] reduce exclusive ilock hold times V2 Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 1/5] xfs: avoid taking the ilock unnessecarily in xfs_qm_dqattach Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-02 19:24 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 2/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_file_aio_write_checks Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-02 19:26 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-04-19 20:30 ` Ben Myers
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 3/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_setattr_size Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-02 19:26 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-04-19 21:00 ` Ben Myers
2012-04-19 22:43 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 4/5] xfs: push the ilock into xfs_zero_eof Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-02 20:39 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 5/5] xfs: use shared ilock mode for direct IO writes by default Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-03 17:01 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-03-27 20:52 ` Dave Chinner [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=20120327205201.GC5091@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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