[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110826131341.GA7114@localhost>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:13:41 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] writeback: dirty position control
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 08:20:57PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 08:11:50PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 19:26 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > Now I get 3 figures. Test case is: run 1 dd write task for 300s, with
> > > a "disturber" dd read task during roughly 120-130s.
> >
> > Ah, but ideally the disturber task should run in bursts of 100ms
> > (<feedback period), otherwise your N is indeed mostly constant.
>
> Ah yeah, the disturber task should be a dd writer! Then we get
>
> - 120s: N=1 => N=2
> - 130s: N=2 => N=1
Here they are. The write disturber starts/stops around 150s.
We got similar result as in the read disturber case, even though one
disturbs N and the other impacts writeout bandwith. The original
patchset is consistently performing much better :)
Thanks,
Fengguang
Download attachment "balance_dirty_pages-pages.png" of type "image/png" (120914 bytes)
Download attachment "balance_dirty_pages-pages_pure-rate-feedback.png" of type "image/png" (142966 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists