[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1235456745.26788.237.camel@nimitz>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:25:45 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Another Performance Regression in write() syscall
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 22:05 -0800, Salman Qazi wrote:
> Analysis of profile data has led us to believe that the commit
> 3d733633a633065729c9e4e254b2e5442c00ef7e has caused a performance
> regression. This commit provides for tracking of writers so that read only
> bind mounts function correctly.
>
> We can verify this regression by applying the following patch to partially
> disable the above-mentioned commit and then running the fstime component
> of Unixbench. The settings used were 256 byte writes with MAX_BLOCK of 2000.
I'm a bit surprised that write() is what is regressing. Unless I
screwed up, we do all the expensive accounting at open()/close() time.
Is this a test that gets run in parallel on multiple cpus?
Could you take a look at Nick's patches to speed this stuff up?
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/28186
We may need to dust those off, although I'm still a bit worried about
the complexities of open-coding all the barriers.
Could we also see some kind of profile? What kind of machine are you
seeing this on, btw?
-- Dave
--
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