From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754523Ab1DUBBk (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:01:40 -0400 Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:53105 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752774Ab1DUBBj (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:01:39 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoMDAKR+r015LHHJgWdsb2JhbAClSBUBARYmJcc1DoVoBA Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:01:32 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Wu Fengguang Cc: Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Mel Gorman , Trond Myklebust , Itaru Kitayama , Minchan Kim , LKML , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Memory Management List Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback Message-ID: <20110421010132.GE1814@dastard> References: <20110419030003.108796967@intel.com> <20110419030532.515923886@intel.com> <20110419073523.GF23985@dastard> <20110419095740.GC5257@quack.suse.cz> <20110419125616.GA20059@localhost> <20110420012120.GK23985@dastard> <20110420073822.GA30672@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110420073822.GA30672@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:38:22PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > make. Please test against a vanilla kernel if that is what you are > > aiming these patches for. If you aren't aiming for a vanilla kernel, > > please say so in the patch series header... > > Here are the test results for vanilla kernel. It's again shows better > numbers for dd, tar and overall run time. > > 2.6.39-rc3 2.6.39-rc3-dyn-expire+ > ------------------------------------------------ > all elapsed 256.043 252.367 > stddev 24.381 12.530 > > tar elapsed 30.097 28.808 > dd elapsed 13.214 11.782 The big reduction in run-to-run variance is very convincing - moreso than the reduction in runtime - That's kind of what I had hoped would occur once I understood the implications of the change. Thanks for running the test to close the loop. :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com