[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CC5F8FE.6000100@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:39:10 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
CC: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: update writeback_index based on last page scanned
Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 04:45:17PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> As pointed out in a prior patch, updating the mapping's
>> writeback_index based on pages written isn't quite right;
>> what the writeback index is really supposed to reflect is
>> the next page which should be scanned for writeback during
>> periodic flush.
>>
>> As in write_cache_pages(), write_cache_pages_da() does
>> this scanning for us as we assemble the mpd for later
>> writeout. If we keep track of the next page after the
>> current scan, we can easily update writeback_index without
>> worrying about pages written vs. pages skipped, etc.
>>
>> Without this, an fsync will reset writeback_index to
>> 0 (its starting index) + however many pages it wrote, which
>> can mess up the progress of periodic flush.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
>
> Have you done any benchmarks with and without this patch series?
>
> Say, compilebench on a used and mildly fragmented file system?
>
> - Ted
Not compilebench specifically, but I did do some benchmarking
with out of cache buffered IO; to be honest I didn't see
striking performance differences, but I did see the writeback
behave better in terms of not wandering all over, even if it
might recover well.
I can try compilebench; do you have specific concerns?
-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