[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091225163341.GE32757@thunk.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:33:41 -0500
From: tytso@....edu
To: Larry McVoy <lm@...mover.com>,
Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Grandi <pg_jf2@....for.sabi.co.UK>,
ext-users <ext3-users@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Jfs-discussion] benchmark results
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 08:22:38AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> Dudes, sync() doesn't flush the fs cache, you have to unmount for that.
> Once upon a time Linux had an ioctl() to flush the fs buffers, I used
> it in lmbench.
>
> ioctl(fd, BLKFLSBUF, 0);
>
> No idea if that is still supported, but sync() is a joke for benchmarking.
Depends on what you are trying to do (flush has multiple meanings, so
using can be ambiguous). BLKFLSBUF will write out any dirty buffers,
*and* empty the buffer cache. I use it when benchmarking e2fsck
optimization. It doesn't do anything for the page cache. If you are
measuring the time to write a file, using fsync() or sync() will
include the time to actually write the data to disk. It won't empty
caches, though; if you are going to measure read as well as writes,
then you'll probably want to do something like "echo 3 >
/proc/sys/vm/drop-caches".
- Ted
--
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