[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100801230225.GC27573@thunk.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:02:25 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Kay Diederichs <kay.diederichs@...-konstanz.de>
Cc: linux <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Karsten Schaefer <karsten.schaefer@...-konstanz.de>
Subject: Re: ext4 performance regression 2.6.27-stable versus 2.6.32 and
later
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:01:36PM +0200, Kay Diederichs wrote:
> whereas for 2.6.32.16 the result is typically
> Filesystem type is: ef53
> File size of
> /mnt/md5/scratch/nfs-test/tmp/xds/frames/h2g28_1_00000.cbf is
> 6229688 (1521 blocks, blocksize 4096)
> ext logical physical expected length flags
> 0 0 826376200 1521 eof
> /mnt/md5/scratch/nfs-test/tmp/xds/frames/h2g28_1_00000.cbf: 1 extent found
OK, so 2.6.32 is actually doing a better job laying out the files....
The blktrace will be interesting, but at this point I'm wondering if
this is a generic kernel-wide writeback regression. At $WORK we've
noticed some performance regressions between 2.6.26-based kernels and
2.6.33- and 2.6.34-based kernels with both ext2 and ext4 (in no
journal mode) that we've been trying to track down. We have a pretty
large number of patches applied to both 2.6.26 and 2.6.33/34 which is
why I haven't mentioned it up until now, but at this point it seems
pretty clear there are some writeback issues in the mainline kernel.
There are half a dozen or so patch series on LKML that are addressing
writeback in one way or another, and writeback is a major topic at the
upcoming Linux Storage and Filesystem workshop. So if this is the
cause, hopefully there will be some improvements in this area in the
near future.
- 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