[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C7C0819.8040505@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:35:53 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Bill Fink <bill@...ard.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov>
CC: Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"adilger@....com" <adilger@....com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"Fink, William E. (GSFC-6061)" <william.e.fink@...a.gov>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: fix 50% disk write performance regression
Bill Fink wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
>> When I get some time (soon I hope) I'll look into the ramifications
>> of this change (i.e. what if wbc->nr_to_write * 8 is more than the dirty
>> pages, do things work out ok?) but it seems pretty reasonable.
>
> In thinking about that issue, my non-expert thought was that
> if desired_nr_to_write was larger, it hopefully wouldn't be an
> issue since presumably it's only going to actually write at most
> the number of dirty pages anyway. And on the flip side, there
> doesn't seem to be an issue with desired_nr_to_write possibly
> being smaller that it was without the patch, since the empirical
> evidence is that the performance significantly improved with the
> patch, and the effect of a lower value would presumably be
> reduced performance.
>
> -Bill
Ted's suggestion of capturing blktrace data would be a really great
step towards understanding what changed, too.
Thanks!
-Eric
--
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