[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100623100252.GB9575@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:02:52 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: trying to understand READ_META, READ_SYNC, WRITE_SYNC & co
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:25:04PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> In my testing in the past, this was helping if lots of sequential readers
> are running in a system (with 100ms slice each) and if there is another
> reader doing small file reads. Without meta data based preemption check,
> latency of opening small file used to be very high (Because all the sync
> sequntial reader gets to consume their 100ms slices first).
>
> Situation should be somewhat better now after corrado's changes of
> reducing slice length dynamically. But I suspect that we will still
> experience significantly reduced latency for small file reads in presece
> of multiple sequntial reads going on.
Any chance we could create a benchmark suite for the I/O schedulers?
I'd really like to get these annotations correct, and having an
automated suite that shows the numbers for the interesting workloads
would help greatly with that.
--
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