[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <93CB867E-B908-4B38-A146-A9DC958ACF64@dilger.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:59:37 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, xfs <xfs@....sgi.com>,
jack <jack@...e.cz>, axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
dchinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: buffered writeback torture program
On 2011-04-21, at 11:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:34:44PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>> Sorry, this doesn't do it. I think that given what a strange special
>> case this is, we're best off waiting for the IO-less throttling, and
>> maybe changing the code in xfs/ext4 to be a little more seek aware. Or
>> maybe not, it has to get written eventually either way.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean with seek aware. XFS only clusters
> additional pages that are in the same extent, and in fact only does
> so for asynchrononous writeback. Not sure how this should be more
> seek aware.
But doesn't XFS have potentially very large extents, especially in the case of files that were fallocate()'d or linearly written? If there is a single 8GB extent, and then random writes within that extent (seems very database like) grouping the all of the writes in the extent doesn't seem so great.
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