From: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Keith Mannthey <kmannth@us.ibm.com>,
Mingming Cao <mcao@us.ibm.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: Performance testing of various barrier reduction patches [was: Re: [RFC v4] ext4: Coordinate fsync requests]
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:33:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101011143317.GA3860@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101008212606.GE25624@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:26:06PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Given the nearness of the merge window, perhaps we ought to discuss
> this on Monday's ext4 call? In the meantime I'll clean up the fsync
> coordination patch so that it doesn't have so many debugging knobs
> and whistles.
Yes, we should definitely talk about this on today's call.
One of the things that concern me is that if I'm reading the
spreadsheet correctly, there are some colums (for example,
elm3c44_sas, comparing I3, which is what will be in 2.6.36 --- jan's
patch, but not yours, and the currently existing behaviour --- with
I10 which is as I understand it, what you are recommending, I see an
FFSB regression from 1,916.54 to 1,690.33).
That's something like a 15% regression. I know that for other
hardware, there are improvements, but the fact that at least for some
hardware we're seeing such a big regression makes me worried that
we're missing something --- or maybe it's just me who is missing
something about your spreadsheet?
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-11 14:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-29 23:51 [RFC] ext4: Don't send extra barrier during fsync if there are no dirty pages Darrick J. Wong
2010-05-04 0:57 ` Mingming Cao
2010-05-04 14:16 ` Ric Wheeler
2010-05-04 15:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-30 12:48 ` tytso
2010-06-30 13:21 ` Ric Wheeler
2010-06-30 13:44 ` tytso
2010-06-30 13:54 ` Ric Wheeler
2010-06-30 19:05 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-07-21 17:16 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-03 0:09 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-03 9:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-08-04 18:16 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-03 13:21 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-03 13:24 ` Avi Kivity
2010-08-04 23:32 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-08-05 2:20 ` Avi Kivity
2010-08-05 16:17 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-08-05 19:13 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-08-05 20:39 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-08-05 20:44 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-05-04 19:49 ` Mingming Cao
2010-06-29 20:51 ` [RFC v2] " Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-05 16:40 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-08-05 16:45 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-08-06 7:04 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-06 10:17 ` Ric Wheeler
2010-08-09 19:53 ` [RFC v3] ext4: Combine barrier requests coming from fsync Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-09 21:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-08-16 16:14 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-19 2:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-19 8:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-08-19 9:17 ` Tejun Heo
2010-08-19 15:48 ` Tejun Heo
2010-08-09 21:19 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-08-09 23:38 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-19 2:14 ` [RFC v4] ext4: Coordinate fsync requests Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-23 18:31 ` Performance testing of various barrier reduction patches [was: Re: [RFC v4] ext4: Coordinate fsync requests] Darrick J. Wong
2010-09-23 23:25 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-09-24 6:24 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-09-24 11:44 ` Ric Wheeler
2010-09-27 23:01 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-10-08 21:26 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-10-08 21:56 ` Ric Wheeler
2010-10-11 20:20 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-10-12 14:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-15 23:39 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-10-15 23:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16 0:02 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-10-11 14:33 ` Ted Ts'o [this message]
2010-10-18 22:49 ` Darrick J. Wong
2010-10-19 18:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-08-06 7:13 ` [RFC v2] ext4: Don't send extra barrier during fsync if there are no dirty pages Darrick J. Wong
2010-08-06 18:04 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-08-09 19:36 ` Darrick J. Wong
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=20101011143317.GA3860@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
--cc=djwong@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kmannth@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcao@us.ibm.com \
--cc=rwheeler@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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