[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903261534490.3032@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: ext3 IO latency measurements (was: Linux 2.6.29)
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> Reads are measurably better with the patch - the test with cat you
> describe below took ~0.5s per file without the patch and always less than
> 0.02s with the patch. So it seems to help something.
That would seem to be a _huge_ improvement.
Reads are the biggest issue for starting a new process (eg starting
firefox while under load), and if cat'ing that small file improved by that
much, then I bet there's a huge practical implication for a lot of desktop
uses.
The fundamental fsync() latency problem we sadly can't help much with, the
way ext3 seems to work. But I do suspect that the whole "don't synchronize
with the journal for normal write-outs" may end up helping even fsync just
a bit, if only because I suspect it will improve writeout throughput too
and thus avoid one particular bottleneck.
Linus
--
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