From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751627F50 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:15:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561F8304066 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 18:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim2.fusionio.com (dkim2.fusionio.com [66.114.96.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id buMTt2iSSct3AUTZ (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.fusionio.com (unknown [10.101.1.160]) by dkim2.fusionio.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91ECF9A069A for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 19:15:35 -0600 (MDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Chris Mason In-Reply-To: <20130708124453.GC3438@dastard> References: <1372657476-9241-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130708124453.GC3438@dastard> Message-ID: <20130709011533.3855.97802@localhost.localdomain> Subject: Re: Some baseline tests on new hardware (was Re: [PATCH] xfs: optimise CIL insertion during transaction commit [RFC]) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 21:15:33 -0400 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: Dave Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Dave Chinner (2013-07-08 08:44:53) > [cc fsdevel because after all the XFS stuff I did a some testing on > mmotm w.r.t per-node LRU lock contention avoidance, and also some > scalability tests against ext4 and btrfs for comparison on some new > hardware. That bit ain't pretty. ] > > And, well, the less said about btrfs unlinks the better: > > + 37.14% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore > + 33.18% [kernel] [k] __write_lock_failed > + 17.96% [kernel] [k] __read_lock_failed > + 1.35% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irq > + 0.82% [kernel] [k] __do_softirq > + 0.53% [kernel] [k] btrfs_tree_lock > + 0.41% [kernel] [k] btrfs_tree_read_lock > + 0.41% [kernel] [k] do_raw_read_lock > + 0.39% [kernel] [k] do_raw_write_lock > + 0.38% [kernel] [k] btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw > + 0.37% [kernel] [k] free_extent_buffer > + 0.36% [kernel] [k] btrfs_tree_read_unlock > + 0.32% [kernel] [k] do_raw_write_unlock > Hi Dave, Thanks for doing these runs. At least on Btrfs the best way to resolve the tree locking today is to break things up into more subvolumes. I've got another run at the root lock contention in the queue after I get the skiplists in place in a few other parts of the Btrfs code. -chris _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs