Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262273AbVDXHPd (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:15:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262275AbVDXHPc (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:15:32 -0400 Received: from unthought.net ([212.97.129.88]:12503 "EHLO unthought.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262273AbVDXHPZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:15:25 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 09:15:24 +0200 From: Jakob Oestergaard To: Trond Myklebust , Greg Banks , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: bdflush/rpciod high CPU utilization, profile does not make sense Message-ID: <20050424071523.GV17359@unthought.net> Mail-Followup-To: Jakob Oestergaard , Trond Myklebust , Greg Banks , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20050411134703.GC13369@unthought.net> <1113230125.9962.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20050411144127.GE13369@unthought.net> <1113232905.9962.15.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20050411154211.GG13369@unthought.net> <1113267809.1956.242.camel@hole.melbourne.sgi.com> <20050412092843.GB17359@unthought.net> <20050419194515.GP17359@unthought.net> <1113950788.10685.9.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20050420135758.GS17359@unthought.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050420135758.GS17359@unthought.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1890 Lines: 42 On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:57:58PM +0200, Jakob Oestergaard wrote: ... > Will try either changing tg3 driver or putting in an e1000 on my NFS > server - I will let you know about the status on this when I know more. tg3 or e1000 on the NFS server doesn't make a noticable difference. Now, I tried booting the 2.6.11 NFS client in uniprocessor mode (thinking the rpciod threads might be wasting their time contending for a lock), and that turned out to be interesting. Performance on SMP NFS client: File Block Num Seq Read Rand Read Seq Write Rand Write Dir Size Size Thr Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) ------- ------ ------- --- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- . 2000 4096 1 47.53 80.0% 5.013 2.79% 22.34 32.2% 6.510 14.9% . 2000 4096 2 45.29 78.6% 8.068 5.44% 24.53 34.1% 7.042 14.9% . 2000 4096 4 45.38 78.0% 11.02 7.95% 25.13 35.1% 7.525 18.0% Performance on UP NFS client: File Block Num Seq Read Rand Read Seq Write Rand Write Dir Size Size Thr Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) Rate (CPU%) ------- ------ ------- --- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- . 2000 4096 1 57.11 54.7% 69.60 24.9% 35.09 14.2% 6.656 19.1% . 2000 4096 2 60.11 58.8% 70.99 30.8% 33.82 14.1% 7.283 25.1% . 2000 4096 4 67.89 59.8% 42.10 19.1% 29.86 12.7% 7.850 26.4% So, by booting the NFS client in uniprocessor mode, I got a 50% write performance boost, 20% read perforamance boost, and the tests use about half the CPU time. Isn't this a little disturbing? :) -- / jakob - 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/