linux-ext4 - Re: partially uptodate page reads

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200807281656.37908.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:56:37 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, jack@....cz,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: partially uptodate page reads

On Monday 28 July 2008 16:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:34:12 +0900 Hisashi Hifumi 
<hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > >> > Are there significant numbers of people using block size < page size
> > >> > in situations where performance is important and significantly
> > >> > improved by this patch? Can you give any performance numbers to
> > >> > illustrate perhaps?
> > >>
> > >> With XFS lots of people use 4k blocksize filesystems on ia64 systems
> > >> with 16k pages, so an optimization like this would be useful.
> > >
> > >As Nick says, we really should have some measurement results which
> > >confirm this theory.  Maybe we did do some but they didn't find theor
> > >way into the changelog.
> > >
> > >I've put the patch on hold until this confirmation data is available.
> >
> > I've got some performance number.
> > I wrote a benchmark program and got result number with this program.
> > This benchmark do:
> > 	1, mount and open a test file.
> > 	2, create a 512MB file.
> > 	3, close a file and umount.
> > 	4, mount and again open a test file.
> > 	5, pwrite randomly 300000 times on a test file. offset is aligned by IO
> > size(1024bytes). 6, measure time of preading randomly 100000 times on a
> > test file.
> >
> > The result was:
> > 	2.6.26
> >         330 sec
> >
> > 	2.6.26-patched
> >         226 sec
> >
> > Arch:i386
> > Filesystem:ext3
> > Blocksize:1024 bytes
> > Memory: 1GB
> >
> > On ext3/4, a file is written through buffer/block. So random read/write
> > mixed workloads or random read after random write workloads are optimized
> > with this patch under pagesize != blocksize environment. This test result
> > showed this.

Yeah, thanks for the numbers.


> OK, thanks.  Those are pretty nice numbers for what is probably a
> fairly common workload.

What kind of workloads does this kind of thing?
--
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