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 D44CD8032 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 23:55:09 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673DBAC002 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:55:06 -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 ni68BcFW89ogfGED for ; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 21:55:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:55:02 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: possible fsync02() xfs slowness regression on power7 Message-ID: <20130304055502.GP23616@dastard> References: <220575861.7590457.1362129618880.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <1601552351.8516567.1362371006444.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1601552351.8516567.1362371006444.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: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 11:23:26PM -0500, CAI Qian wrote: > > > > 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.... > Confirmed this fixed the problem. I'd like to request this to be back-ported > to stable-3.0, stable-3.4 and stable-3.8. What do you think? IMO, no, it is not a backport candidate. The patch has quite a few dependencies, and at least for 3.0 xfs_bmapi_read() doesn't exist and hence is not a trivial backport. Further, it's take 2 years for this to be noticed, and you haven't explained why the problem exists on your power machine and not any others that it has been tested on. And there's been very few complaints about performance of such workloads over the past 2 years, so either the workload is not important or only your power7 machine is having problems. Hence I don't see any need to back port it - it's not a critical fix and very few people see the problem so there's no real need to do the backport. Maybe someone else has the time and resources to waste on backporting non-critical fixes to stable kernels, but I don't.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs