Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760077Ab3HOCYG (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:24:06 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:6299 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757654Ab3HOCYE (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:24:04 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,881,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="346589426" Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:24:01 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Dave Chinner Cc: Dave Hansen , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara , LKML , Tim Chen , Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs) Message-ID: <20130815022401.GQ23412@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <520BB9EF.5020308@linux.intel.com> <20130815002436.GI6023@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130815002436.GI6023@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 585 Lines: 15 > And FWIW, it's no secret that XFS has more per-operation overhead > than ext4 through the write path when it comes to allocation, so > it's no surprise that on a workload that is highly dependent on > allocation overhead that ext4 is a bit faster.... This cannot explain a worse scaling curve though? w-i-s is all about scaling. -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/