From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 05:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k9DCI9aG003492 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 05:18:12 -0700 Message-ID: <452F83BD.8050501@ah.jp.nec.com> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:17:01 +0900 From: Takenori Nagano MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch] Fix xfs_iunpin() sets I_DIRTY_SYNC after clear_inode(). References: <45237CCE.4010007@ah.jp.nec.com> <20061006032617.GC11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <20061011064357.GN19345@melbourne.sgi.com> <452E32FF.8010109@ah.jp.nec.com> <20061013014651.GC19345@melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20061013014651.GC19345@melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi David, David Chinner wrote: >> Block I/O performance degradation was very serious. > > That was unexpected. :/ > >> Now, I am trying to ease the degradation. >> Do you have any idea for resolving the degradation? > > Did you see a degradation with your original fix? I suspect > not. No, I don't see any degradation with my patch. But my patch is not perfect. Because xfs_log_force() don't guarantee to write the log in run time. > > Can you test this patch (on top of the last patch I sent) > and see if it fixes the degradation? I tried your patch, but it seems degradation was not resolved. procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- -----cpu------ r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st 1 0 0 15585968 21856 151696 0 0 73 273 258 298 1 3 94 2 0 0 0 0 15585968 21856 151840 0 0 0 2270 2156 2693 0 2 98 0 0 1 0 0 15585744 21856 151920 0 0 0 2362 2161 2797 0 2 98 0 0 0 0 0 15585408 21856 151824 0 0 0 2291 2156 2732 0 2 98 0 0 0 0 0 15584848 21856 152288 0 0 0 2300 2156 2765 0 2 98 0 0 2 0 0 15584848 21856 151952 0 0 0 2346 2161 2809 0 2 98 0 0 Ummmm, I think schedule() was called many times by wait_event(). Best Regards, -- Takenori Nagano, NEC t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com