[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1295594273.1949.935.camel@sli10-conroe>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:17:53 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: "Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>, "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"czoccolo@...il.com" <czoccolo@...il.com>,
"jaxboe@...ionio.com" <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [performance bug] kernel building regression on 64 LCPUs
machine
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 23:16 +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:03:26AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > add Jan and Theodore to the loop.
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 09:55 +0800, Shi, Alex wrote:
> > > Shaohua and I tested kernel building performance on latest kernel. and
> > > found it is drop about 15% on our 64 LCPUs NHM-EX machine on ext4 file
> > > system. We find this performance dropping is due to commit
> > > 749ef9f8423054e326f. If we revert this patch or just change the
> > > WRITE_SYNC back to WRITE in jbd2/commit.c file. the performance can be
> > > recovered.
> > >
> > > iostat report show with the commit, read request merge number increased
> > > and write request merge dropped. The total request size increased and
> > > queue length dropped. So we tested another patch: only change WRITE_SYNC
> > > to WRITE_SYNC_PLUG in jbd2/commit.c, but nothing effected.
> > since WRITE_SYNC_PLUG doesn't work, this isn't a simple no-write-merge issue.
> >
>
> Yep, it does sound like reduce write merging. But moving journal commits
> back to WRITE, then fsync performance will drop as there will be idling
> introduced between fsync thread and journalling thread. So that does
> not sound like a good idea either.
>
> Secondly, in presence of mixed workload (some other sync read happening)
> WRITES can get less bandwidth and sync workload much more. So by
> marking journal commits as WRITES you might increase the delay there
> in completion in presence of other sync workload.
>
> So Jan Kara's approach makes sense that if somebody is waiting on
> commit then make it WRITE_SYNC otherwise make it WRITE. Not sure why
> did it not work for you. Is it possible to run some traces and do
> more debugging that figure out what's happening.
I'll debug and see if I can find anything.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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