[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1231528042.5998.13.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:07:22 -0500
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: Increase dirty_ratio and dirty_background_ratio?
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 19:02 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> What we observe in the seekwatcher graphs is, that there are three
> processes writing back the single database file in parallel (2 pdflush
> threads because the machine has 2 CPUs, and the database process itself
> because of dirty throttling). Each of the processes is writing back the
> file at a different offset and so they together create even more random IO
> (I'm attaching the graph and can provide blocktrace data if someone is
> interested). If there was just one process doing the writeback, we'd be
> writing back those data considerably faster...
I spent some time trying similar things for btrfs, and went as far as
making my own writeback thread and changing pdflush and throttled writes
to wait on it. It was a great hack, but in the end I found the real
problem was the way write_cache_pages is advancing the page_index.
You probably remember the related ext4 discussion, and you could try my
simple patch in this workload to see if it helps ext3.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/1/278
Ext3 may need similar tricks.
-chris
--
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