[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101019182817.GA11810@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:28:18 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Keith Mannthey <kmannth@...ibm.com>,
Mingming Cao <mcao@...ibm.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
hch@....de
Subject: Re: Performance testing of various barrier reduction patches [was: Re: [RFC v4] ext4: Coordinate fsync requests]
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 03:49:36PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Through this table, I'm looking for a performance characteristic that typifies
> storage with a battery-backed write cache (BBWC). As we can see from
> lldd_flush_rtt_avg, the BBWC storage features a very low flush time, about 1ms
> or less. Everything else, including SSDs, are over that amount. The other odd
> result I see is that it takes a significant amount of time to get a flush
> command from the top of the block layer to the LLDD, though I suspect some of
> that might be waiting for the device to process earlier writes. Christoph has
> a patch that looks like it streamlines that, but it triggered various BUG_ONs
> when I booted with it, so I took the patch out.
We currently synchronize flush requests. There's no real reason to do
it except that we'll either need to make drivers accept flush requests
with a bio attached to them or find a workaround in the block layer to
submit it without bio without synchronizing them.
I thin kthat should be the first angle of attack before adding
complexity to filesystems.
--
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