From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263171AbUEWQ4y (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 12:56:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263173AbUEWQ4y (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 12:56:54 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:27046 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263171AbUEWQ4u (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 12:56:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 18:56:35 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Lorenzo Allegrucci Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.6-mm5 oops mounting ext3 or reiserfs with -o barrier Message-ID: <20040523165634.GS1952@suse.de> References: <200405222107.55505.l_allegrucci@despammed.com> <200405231732.15600.l_allegrucci@despammed.com> <20040523154524.GR1952@suse.de> <200405231843.56591.l_allegrucci@despammed.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200405231843.56591.l_allegrucci@despammed.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 23 2004, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote: > On Sunday 23 May 2004 17:45, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Sun, May 23 2004, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote: > > > On Sunday 23 May 2004 12:03, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > Here's a rolled up updated version that tries to get async notification > > > > of missing barrier support working as well. reiser currently doesn't > > > > cope with that correctly (fails mount), ext3 seems to but gets stuck. > > > > Andrew has that fixed already, I think :-) > > > > > > > > Lorenzo, can you test this on top of 2.6.6-mm5? > > > > > > Problem fixed, but there is some performance regression > > > > > > ext3 (default) > > > untar read copy remove > > > 0m53.861s 0m24.942s 1m30.164s 0m20.664s > > > 0m7.132s 0m1.191s 0m0.766s 0m0.076s > > > 0m5.807s 0m3.345s 0m9.996s 0m1.719s > > > > > > ext3 (-o barrier=1) > > > untar read copy remove > > > 0m52.117s 0m28.502s 1m51.153s 0m25.561s > > > 0m7.231s 0m1.209s 0m0.738s 0m0.071s > > > 0m6.117s 0m3.191s 0m9.347s 0m1.635s > > > > Not sure what you mean here > > Untar, read, copy and remove the OpenOffice tarball, each test > run with cold cache (mount/umount cycle). I understand that, I just don't see how you can call it a regression. It's a given that barrier will be slower. > > but yes of course -o barrier=1 is going to > > be slower than default + write back caching. What you should compare is > > without barrier support and hdparm -W0 /dev/hdX, if -o barrier=1 with > > caching on is slower then that's a regression :-) > > hdparm -W0 /dev/hda > > ext3 (-o barrier=0) > untar read copy remove > 1m55.190s 0m27.633s 2m19.072s 0m21.348s > 0m7.081s 0m1.189s 0m0.724s 0m0.083s > 0m6.502s 0m3.244s 0m9.715s 0m1.633s > > ext3 (-o barrier=1) > untar read copy remove > 1m55.358s 0m23.831s 2m16.674s 0m21.508s > 0m7.153s 0m1.200s 0m0.748s 0m0.087s > 0m6.775s 0m3.358s 0m9.985s 0m1.781s > > > haparm -W1 /dev/hda > > ext3 (-o barrier=0) > untar read copy remove > 0m55.405s 0m26.230s 1m28.765s 0m20.766s > 0m7.195s 0m1.199s 0m0.773s 0m0.081s > 0m6.502s 0m3.359s 0m9.672s 0m1.868s > > ext3 (-o barrier=1) > untar read copy remove > 0m52.117s 0m28.502s 1m51.153s 0m25.561s > 0m7.231s 0m1.209s 0m0.738s 0m0.071s > 0m6.117s 0m3.191s 0m9.347s 0m1.635s Your results look a bit over the map, how many runs are your averaging for each one? -- Jens Axboe