[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4966D652.4070105@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:45:06 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Grissiom <chaos.proton@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] async: Don't call async_synchronize_full_special() while
holding sb_lock
Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> So, given the potential impact of this change, what testing have
> you done in terms of:
>
> - performance impact
I tested this on my machines and it gave a real performance improvement (11 to 8 seconds for a full kernel tree unlink, and cutting out
latency for normal applications)
> - sync() safety
that was exactly the synchronization point that's discussed here.
> - removing a million files and queuing all of the
> deletes in the async queues....
the async code throttles at 32k outstanding.
Yes 32K is arbitrary, but if you delete a million files fast, all but the first few thousand are
synchronous.
--
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