From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
To: mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, richard.a.griffiths@intel.com
Subject: Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:54:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D1127D6.F6988C4B@zip.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200206200022.g5K0MKP27994@unix-os.sc.intel.com
mgross wrote:
>
> ...
> Has anyone done any work looking into the I/O scaling of Linux / ext3 per
> spindle or per adapter? We would like to compare notes.
No. ext3 scalability is very poor, I'm afraid. The fs really wasn't
up and running until kernel 2.4.5 and we just didn't have time to
address that issue.
> I've only just started to look at the ext3 code but it seems to me that replacing the
> BKL with a per - ext3 file system lock could remove some of the contention thats
> getting measured. What data are the BKL protecting in these ext3 functions? Could a
> lock per FS approach work?
The vague plan there is to replace lock_kernel with lock_journal
where appropriate. But ext3 scalability work of this nature
will be targetted at the 2.5 kernel, most probably.
I'll take a look, see if there's any low-hanging fruit in there,
but I doubt that the results will be fantastic.
-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-20 0:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-19 21:29 ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large mgross
2002-06-20 0:54 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-06-20 4:09 ` [Lse-tech] " Dave Hansen
2002-06-20 6:03 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-06-20 6:53 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 9:54 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-06-20 1:55 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 6:05 ` Jens Axboe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-20 15:26 ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets la rge Griffiths, Richard A
2002-06-20 20:18 ` ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 18:08 ` mgross
2002-06-20 21:25 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 21:50 ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets la rge Griffiths, Richard A
2002-06-21 7:58 ` ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Andrew Morton
2002-06-21 18:46 ` mgross
2002-06-21 19:26 ` Chris Mason
2002-06-21 19:56 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-23 4:02 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 4:33 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-06-23 6:00 ` Christopher E. Brown
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=3D1127D6.F6988C4B@zip.com.au \
--to=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--cc=richard.a.griffiths@intel.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