Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1339230
| From | Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [lkp] [xfs] fbcc025613: -5.6% fsmark.files_per_sec |
| Date | 2016-02-22 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r4Uvx-32j-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r3Jsu-6IV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3N34-13P-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:49:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > That doesn't really seem right. The writeback should be done as a > single ioend, with a single completion, with a single setsize > transaction, adn then all the pages are marked clean sequentially. > The above behaviour implies we are ending up doing something like: > > fsync proc io completion > wait on page 0 > end page 0 writeback > wake up page 0 > wait on page 1 > end page 1 writeback > wake up page 1 > wait on page 2 > end page 2 writeback > wake up page 2 > > Though in slightly larger batches than a single page (10 wakeups a > file, so batches of around 100 pages per wakeup?). i.e. the fsync > IO wait appears to be racing with IO completion marking pages as > done. I simply cannot see how the above change would cause that, as > it was simply a change in the IO submission code that doesn't affect > overall size or shape of the IOs being submitted. Could this be the lack of blk plugs, which will cause us to complete too early?
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [lkp] [xfs] fbcc025613: -5.6% fsmark.files_per_sec Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-02-19 07:50 +0100
Re: [lkp] [xfs] fbcc025613: -5.6% fsmark.files_per_sec Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2016-02-22 10:00 +0100
Re: [lkp] [xfs] fbcc025613: -5.6% fsmark.files_per_sec Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-02-22 12:30 +0100
csiph-web