[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130130052658.GE25006@thunk.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:26:58 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
mszeredi@...e.cz
Subject: Re: jbd2: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily
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?
- Ted
--
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