[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130130104110.GC22091@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:41:10 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
mszeredi@...e.cz
Subject: Re: jbd2: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily
On Wed 30-01-13 11:29:02, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> > On Wed 30-01-13 00:26:58, Ted Tso wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:29:11PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> > > old JBD: AIM7 jobs/min 97624.39; got 78193 jbd wakeups
> >> > > new JBD: AIM7 jobs/min 85929.43; got 6306999 jbd wakeups, 6264684 extra wakeups
> >> > Yeah, that's a lot. My guess would be *a lot* of processes are hanging in
> >> > start_this_handle() and waiting for transaction commit. Each of them calls
> >> > __log_start_commit() and things add up. Thanks for getting these numbers.
> >>
> >> Yeah, wow. That would imply that there are a huge number of processes
> >> that get hung up in start_this_handle(), and they are waking up the
> >> journal before the kjournald has a chance to set T_LOCKED (since then
> >> they would get blocked earlier in start_this_handle).
> >>
> >> Given that, I wonder if the following change would actually help or
> >> hurt things. Eric, would you be willing to ask your perf team to try
> >> testing out these patches?
> > Umm, I don't see anything. Forgot to attach them?
> >
>
> Here I catched the two patches:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/216768/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/216767/
Ah, OK. Thanks for the pointer.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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