[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090526164252.0741b392.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:42:52 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] readahead:add blk_run_backing_dev
On Fri, 22 May 2009 10:33:23 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > I tested above patch, and I got same performance number.
> > I wonder why if (PageUptodate(page)) check is there...
>
> Thanks! This is an interesting micro timing behavior that
> demands some research work. The above check is to confirm if it's
> the PageUptodate() case that makes the difference. So why that case
> happens so frequently so as to impact the performance? Will it also
> happen in NFS?
>
> The problem is readahead IO pipeline is not running smoothly, which is
> undesirable and not well understood for now.
The patch causes a remarkably large performance increase. A 9%
reduction in time for a linear read? I'd be surprised if the workload
even consumed 9% of a CPU, so where on earth has the kernel gone to?
Have you been able to reproduce this in your testing?
Thanks.
--
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