Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261910AbVC3OVn (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:21:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261912AbVC3OVn (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:21:43 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:44428 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261910AbVC3OVj (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:21:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:20:56 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Lee Revell , linux-kernel Subject: Re: NFS client latencies Message-ID: <20050330142056.GA3043@elte.hu> References: <1112137487.5386.33.camel@mindpipe> <1112138283.11346.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1112139155.5386.35.camel@mindpipe> <1112139263.11892.0.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20050330080224.GB19683@elte.hu> <1112191860.10634.29.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1112191860.10634.29.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1350 Lines: 28 * Trond Myklebust wrote: > > the comment suggests that this is optimized for append writes (which is > > quite common, but by far not the only write workload) - but the > > worst-case behavior of this code is very bad. How about disabling this > > sorting altogether and benchmarking the result? Maybe it would get > > comparable coalescing (higher levels do coalesce after all), but wastly > > improved CPU utilization on the client side. (Note that the server > > itself will do sorting of any write IO anyway, if this is to hit any > > persistent storage - and if not then sorting so agressively on the > > client side makes little sense.) > > No. Coalescing on the client makes tons of sense. The overhead of > sending 8 RPC requests for 4k writes instead of sending 1 RPC request > for a single 32k write is huge: among other things, you end up tying up > 8 RPC slots on the client + 8 nfsd threads on the server instead of just > one of each. yes - coalescing a few pages makes sense, but linearly scanning thousands of entries is entirely pointless. Ingo - 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/