From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <ying.huang@linux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
lkp@01.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [xfs] fbcc025613: -5.6% fsmark.files_per_sec
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:54:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160222085409.GA19493@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160219064932.GX14668@dastard>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:49:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> That doesn't really seem right. The writeback should be done as a
> single ioend, with a single completion, with a single setsize
> transaction, adn then all the pages are marked clean sequentially.
> The above behaviour implies we are ending up doing something like:
>
> fsync proc io completion
> wait on page 0
> end page 0 writeback
> wake up page 0
> wait on page 1
> end page 1 writeback
> wake up page 1
> wait on page 2
> end page 2 writeback
> wake up page 2
>
> Though in slightly larger batches than a single page (10 wakeups a
> file, so batches of around 100 pages per wakeup?). i.e. the fsync
> IO wait appears to be racing with IO completion marking pages as
> done. I simply cannot see how the above change would cause that, as
> it was simply a change in the IO submission code that doesn't affect
> overall size or shape of the IOs being submitted.
Could this be the lack of blk plugs, which will cause us to complete
too early?
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-22 8:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <87vb5lqunb.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
2016-02-19 6:49 ` [lkp] [xfs] fbcc025613: -5.6% fsmark.files_per_sec Dave Chinner
2016-02-22 8:54 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2016-02-22 11:22 ` Dave Chinner
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=20160222085409.GA19493@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=ying.huang@linux.intel.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