[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4702851A.1050100@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:51:22 -0400
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
btrace <linux-btrace@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Markers - performance characterization with large
IO load on large-ish system
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> remember that we have seen and discussed something like this before,
>> it's still a puzzle to me...
>>
>>
> I do wonder about that performance _increase_ with blktrace enabled. I
>
> Interesting question indeed.
>
> In those tests, when blktrace is running, are the relay buffers only
> written to or they are also read ?
>
blktrace (the utility) was running too - so the relay buffere /were/
being read and stored out to disk elsewhere.
> Running the tests without consuming the buffers (in overwrite mode)
> would tell us more about the nature of the disturbance causing the
> performance increase.
>
I'd have to write a utility to enable the traces, but then not read. Let
me think about that.
> Also, a kernel trace could help us understand more thoroughly what is
> happening there.. is it caused by the scheduler ? memory allocation ?
> data cache alignment ?
>
Yep - when I get some time, I'll look into that. [Clearly not a gating
issue for marker support...]
> I would suggest that you try aligning the block layer data structures
> accessed by blktrace on L2 cacheline size and compare the results (when
> blktrace is disabled).
>
Again, when I get some time! :-)
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists