From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clustering indirect blocks in Ext3
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:47:24 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071118204724.GS19691@waste.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d9885f0f0711180752o71561745h51f2a18d09709e27@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 07:52:36AM -0800, Abhishek Rai wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion Matt.
>
> It took me some time to get compilebench working due to the known
> issue with drop_caches due to circular lock dependency between
> j_list_lock and inode_lock (compilebench triggers drop_caches quite
> frequently). Here are the results for compilebench run with options
> "-i 30 -r 30". I repeated the test 5 times on each of vanilla and mc
> configurations.
>
> Setup: 4 cpu, 8GB RAM, 400GB disk.
>
> Average vanilla results
> ==========================================================================
> intial create total runs 30 avg 46.49 MB/s (user 1.12s sys 2.25s)
> create total runs 5 avg 12.90 MB/s (user 1.08s sys 1.97s)
> patch total runs 4 avg 8.70 MB/s (user 0.60s sys 2.31s)
> compile total runs 7 avg 21.44 MB/s (user 0.32s sys 2.95s)
> clean total runs 4 avg 59.91 MB/s (user 0.05s sys 0.26s)
> read tree total runs 2 avg 21.85 MB/s (user 1.12s sys 2.89s)
> read compiled tree total runs 1 avg 23.47 MB/s (user 1.45s sys 4.89s)
> delete tree total runs 2 avg 13.18 seconds (user 0.64s sys 1.02s)
> no runs for delete compiled tree
> stat tree total runs 4 avg 4.76 seconds (user 0.70s sys 0.50s)
> stat compiled tree total runs 1 avg 7.84 seconds (user 0.74s sys 0.54s)
>
> Average metaclustering results
> ==========================================================================
> intial create total runs 30 avg 45.04 MB/s (user 1.13s sys 2.42s)
> create total runs 5 avg 15.64 MB/s (user 1.08s sys 1.98s)
> patch total runs 4 avg 10.50 MB/s (user 0.61s sys 3.11s)
> compile total runs 7 avg 28.07 MB/s (user 0.33s sys 4.06s)
> clean total runs 4 avg 83.27 MB/s (user 0.04s sys 0.27s)
> read tree total runs 2 avg 21.17 MB/s (user 1.15s sys 2.91s)
> read compiled tree total runs 1 avg 22.79 MB/s (user 1.38s sys 4.89s)
> delete tree total runs 2 avg 9.23 seconds (user 0.62s sys 1.01s)
> no runs for delete compiled tree
> stat tree total runs 4 avg 4.72 seconds (user 0.71s sys 0.50s)
> stat compiled tree total runs 1 avg 6.50 seconds (user 0.79s sys 0.53s)
>
> Overall, metaclustering does better than vanilla except in a few cases.
Well it strikes me as about half up and half down, but the ups are
indeed much more substantial. Looks quite promising.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-18 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-16 5:02 [PATCH] Clustering indirect blocks in Ext3 Abhishek Rai
2007-11-16 7:02 ` Andrew Morton
2007-11-16 7:37 ` Matt Mackall
2007-11-18 15:52 ` Abhishek Rai
2007-11-18 20:47 ` Matt Mackall [this message]
2007-11-19 10:34 ` Kyungmin Park
2007-11-20 20:25 ` John Stoffel
2007-11-16 11:28 ` Andreas Dilger
2007-11-16 21:11 ` Theodore Tso
2007-11-17 0:25 ` Abhishek Rai
2007-11-17 2:58 ` Theodore Tso
2007-11-17 8:58 ` Abhishek Rai
2007-12-21 14:15 ` Abhishek Rai
2008-01-10 21:17 ` Abhishek Rai
2008-01-11 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2008-01-12 0:04 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-12 6:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2008-01-13 5:06 ` Abhishek Rai
2007-11-16 22:27 ` Abhishek Rai
[not found] <9q1CT-82L-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9q3v2-2Br-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9qgLE-7ds-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9qjJx-3wE-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9qm4D-70Q-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9CQTt-7cr-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9KcYS-46E-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
2008-01-11 14:12 ` Bodo Eggert
2008-01-11 14:49 ` Abhishek Rai
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=20071118204724.GS19691@waste.org \
--to=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=abhishekrai@google.com \
--cc=adilger@sun.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kenchen@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikew@google.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