[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52285395.1070508@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 09:49:09 +0000
From: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, T Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com>,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, aswin@...com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, aswin_proj@...ups.hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] ext4: increase mbcache scalability
On 09/05/2013 02:35 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> How did you gather these results? The mbcache is only used if you are
> using extended attributes, and only if the extended attributes don't
> fit in the inode's extra space.
>
> I checked aim7, and it doesn't do any extended attribute operations.
> So why are you seeing differences? Are you doing something like
> deliberately using 128 byte inodes (which is not the default inode
> size), and then enabling SELinux, or some such?
>
> - Ted
>
No, I did not do anything special, including changing an inode's size. I just used the profile data, which indicated mb_cache module as one of the bottleneck. Please see below for perf data from one of th new_fserver run, which also shows some mb_cache activities.
|--3.51%-- __mb_cache_entry_find
| mb_cache_entry_find_first
| ext4_xattr_cache_find
| ext4_xattr_block_set
| ext4_xattr_set_handle
| ext4_initxattrs
| security_inode_init_security
| ext4_init_security
| __ext4_new_inode
| ext4_create
| vfs_create
| lookup_open
| do_last
| path_openat
| do_filp_open
| do_sys_open
| SyS_open
| sys_creat
| system_call
| __creat_nocancel
| |
| |--16.67%-- 0x11fe2c0
| |
Thanks,
Mak.
--
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