Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:41:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:41:30 -0500 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:32025 "EHLO sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:41:22 -0500 Message-Id: <200103021941.f22Jf3e02127@jen.americas.sgi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Chris Mason cc: Steve Lord , Jeremy Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's In-Reply-To: Message from Chris Mason of "Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:38:56 EST." <412990000.983561936@tiny> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:41:02 -0600 From: Steve Lord Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > On Friday, March 02, 2001 01:25:25 PM -0600 Steve Lord wrote: > > >> For why ide is beating scsi in this benchmark...make sure tagged queueing > >> is on (or increase the queue length?). For the xlog.c test posted, I > >> would expect scsi to get faster than ide as the size of the write > >> increases. > > > > I think the issue is the call being used now is going to get slower the > > larger the device is, just from the point of view of how many buffers it > > has to scan. > > filemap_fdatawait, filemap_fdatasync, and fsync_inode_buffers all restrict > their scans to a list of dirty buffers for that specific file. Only > file_fsync goes through all the dirty buffers on the device, and the ext2 > fsync path never calls file_fsync. > > Or am I missing something? > > -chris > > No you are not, I will now go put on the brown paper bag..... The scsi thing is wierd though, we have seen it here too. Steve - 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/