[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <63DB7A38-7D0F-406E-8ACD-9CE5DB977DD9@dilger.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:01:51 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext2: speed up file creates by optimizing rec_len functions
On 2010-12-07, at 14:33, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:22:55 -0600
> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Retesting at a bunch of different number-of-files in bonnie
>> (with a small sample size so probably a little noise)
>>
>> |files per sec|
>> files stock patched delta
>> 10,000 12300 14700 +19%
>> 20,000 6300 7600 +20%
>> 30,000 4200 5000 +20%
>> 40,000 3150 3700 +17%
>> 50,000 2500 3000 +20%
>>
>> (again all on a 512MB ramdisk)
>>
>> *shrug* I'll believe my lyin' eyes, I guess. :)
>
> I bet other tweaks in there would yield similar goodliness.
I think an important factor here is that this is being tested on a ramdisk, and is likely CPU bound, so any CPU reduction will directly be measured as a performance improvement. Probably oprofile is in order to see where other major CPU users are.
In the past, ext3_mark_inode_dirty() was a major offender, and I recall that we discussed on the ext4 concall a mechanism to only copy the inode once per transaction so that overhead could be removed.
Cheers, Andreas
--
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