[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20090527092105.076be238@172.19.0.2>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:25:04 +0900
From: Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: 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
At 08:42 09/05/27, Andrew Morton wrote:
>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
Hi Andrew.
Yes, I tested this with dd.
>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?
Yes, this test on my environment is reproducible.
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