| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:40:42 +0000 From: bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: [Bug 71641] Unreasonable performance degradation in ext4 with full data journaling https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71641 --- Comment #8 from Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> --- it's clear this isn't going to get performance up to 1.1 GB/s, but I'm curious how much setting JBD2_NR_BATCH changes things at 512 and 1024 and possibly even 2048. Once it no longer maters a difference, if you could do another blktrace, and also gather lock_stat information, that would be useful. To gather lock_stat information, enable CONFIG_LOCK_STAT, and then "echo 0 > /proc/lock_stat" before you start the workload, and then capture the output of /proc/lock_stat after you finish running your workload/benchmark. If you also regather numbers with lock_stat enabled on a stock 3.11 kernel (and also get a /proc/lock_stat report from a stock 3.11 kernel, with and without data=journal), that would be useful. If it turns out that there is some lock contention going on with some of the jbd2 spinlocks, there are some patches queued for 3.15 that I may have to ask you to try (which will mean going to something like 3.14-rc7 plus some additional patches from the ext4 git tree). Thanks for your benchmarking! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists