From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755504Ab1GMPbg (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:31:36 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57417 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754809Ab1GMPbf (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:31:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:31:30 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Linux-MM Cc: LKML , XFS , Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , Johannes Weiner , Wu Fengguang , Jan Kara , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Reduce filesystem writeback from page reclaim (again) Message-ID: <20110713153130.GH7529@suse.de> References: <1310567487-15367-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1310567487-15367-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 03:31:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > The objective of the series - reducing writes from reclaim - is > met with filesystem writes from reclaim reduced to 0 with reclaim > in general doing less work. ext3, ext4 and xfs all showed marked > improvements for fs_mark in this configuration. btrfs looked worse > but it's within the noise and I'd expect the patches to have little > or no impact there due it ignoring ->writepage from reclaim. > My bad, I accidentally looked at an old report for btrfs based on older patches. In the report posted with all patches applied, the performance of btrfs does look better but as the patches should make no difference, it's still in the noise. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs