From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0741A7F72 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:54:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9F7AC003 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:54:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id m7welpIrABH0fB4d for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:54:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:54:10 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: possible fsync02() xfs slowness regression on power7 Message-ID: <20130228115410.GN5551@dastard> References: <130819766.6999797.1362043338279.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <2103242337.7001373.1362043715738.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2103242337.7001373.1362043715738.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: CAI Qian Cc: Steve Best , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 04:28:35AM -0500, CAI Qian wrote: > This LTP test starting to fail using the latest upstream kernel on one of the power7 > systems here, http://tinyurl.com/bngwouj > > # ./fsync02 > fsync02 1 TFAIL : fsync took too long: 252.000000 seconds; max_block: 214 > > When it is working, the test is almost returned immediately. The bisecting so far > indicated that one or a few of the following could be culprits. > > # git log --pretty=oneline 498f7f505dc79934c878c7667840c50c64f232fc..b199c8a4ba11879df87daad496ceee41fdc6aa82 They are all patches committed more than 2 years ago, and none of them are platform specific. This sounds more like a machine specific issue than a platform specific problem (i.e. lots of RAM, slow, slow disk). In future when reporting a bug, please tell use hardware you are using as per: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F Given that this is a sparse file test that repeatedly extends the file, this is the likely culprit: > 055388a3188f56676c21e92962fc366ac8b5cb72 xfs: dynamic speculative EOF preallocation And this commit in 3.9-rc1: a1e16c2 xfs: limit speculative prealloc size on sparse files should fix the problem. Please confirm these commits are the cause and the fix respectively.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs