[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <520BED7A.4000903@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:50:02 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, david@...morbit.com,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs)
On 08/14/2013 12:43 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Thanks dave for doing this comparison. Is there any chance you can
> check whether lockstats shows anything interesting?
>
>> Test case is this:
>>
>> https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale/blob/master/tests/page_fault3.c
>
> One interesting thing about the test case. It looks like the first
> time through the while loop, the file will need to be extended (since
> it is a new tempfile). But subsequent times through the list the
> blocks for the file will already be allocated. If the file is
> prezero'ed ahead of time, so we're only measuring the cost of the
> write page fault, and we take block allocation out of the comparison,
> do we see the same scalability curve?
Would a plain old fallocate() do the trick, or does it actually need
zeros written to it?
--
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