[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2101131008530.27448@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:44:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Zhongwei Cai <sunrise_l@...u.edu.cn>
cc: Mingkai Dong <mingkaidong@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Eric Sandeen <esandeen@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Wang Jianchao <jianchao.wan9@...il.com>,
"Tadakamadla, Rajesh" <rajesh.tadakamadla@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: Expense of read_iter
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Zhongwei Cai wrote:
>
> I'm working with Mingkai on optimizations for Ext4-dax.
What specific patch are you working on? Please, post it somewhere.
> We think that optmizing the read-iter method cannot achieve the
> same performance as the read method for Ext4-dax.
> We tried Mikulas's benchmark on Ext4-dax. The overall time and perf
> results are listed below:
>
> Overall time of 2^26 4KB read.
>
> Method Time
> read 26.782s
> read-iter 36.477s
What happens if you use this trick ( https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/1/11/1612 )
- detect in the "read_iter" method that there is just one segment and
treat it like a "read" method. I think that it should improve performance
for your case.
Mikulas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists