2002-09-19 06:27:25

by Andrew Morton

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] EXT3 vs EXT2 results with rmap14a and testing with contest 0.34

Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> ...
> > Kernel Time CPU
> > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 325.39 82%
> > 2.4.20-pre7-rmap14a-xfs-uml-shawn12d 411.47 64%
>
> I don't see this as hugely surprising. ext3 uses more CPU than ext2.
> If you are using up the CPU doing other things, then naturally ext3
> will take a longer wall-clock time to complete the same tasks as ext2.

Yup. But here the CPU load is less; obviously some more seeking
was done. That's fairly normal for ext3 - it has to write the journal
as well as the filesystem....

> I know that Andrew has been doing a bunch of work to reduce ext3 CPU
> usage/locking/etc., but I think that is all in 2.5 kernels.
>

I had a little patch. Stephen is working on the big fix.


2002-09-23 19:01:15

by Stephen C. Tweedie

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] EXT3 vs EXT2 results with rmap14a and testing with contest 0.34

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 11:32:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> I had a little patch. Stephen is working on the big fix.

It passed an overnight Cerberus at the end of last week. :-)
Checking into CVS shortly, then I need to set up a pile of recovery
tests to make sure it's still writing everything it needs to in time.

--Stephen

2002-09-23 19:52:24

by Shawn Starr

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] EXT3 vs EXT2 results with rmap14a and testing with contest 0.34


Which branch of the kernel is this going into? an -ac branch or 2.5 bk?

On September 23, 2002 03:03 pm, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 11:32:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I had a little patch. Stephen is working on the big fix.
>
> It passed an overnight Cerberus at the end of last week. :-)
> Checking into CVS shortly, then I need to set up a pile of recovery
> tests to make sure it's still writing everything it needs to in time.
>
> --Stephen