Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262502AbVESN7L (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2005 09:59:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262511AbVESN7L (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2005 09:59:11 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:5536 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262502AbVESN7C (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2005 09:59:02 -0400 Subject: Re: why nfs server delay 10ms in nfsd_write()? From: Lee Revell To: Peter Staubach Cc: steve , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "zhangtiger@huawei.com" In-Reply-To: <428C8C32.2030803@redhat.com> References: <0IGP00IZRULADZ@szxml02-in.huawei.com> <1116472423.11327.1.camel@mindpipe> <428C8C32.2030803@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:59:00 -0400 Message-Id: <1116511140.21587.4.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 930 Lines: 24 On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 08:53 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > There are certainly many others way to get gathering, without adding an > artificial delay. There are already delay slots built into the code > which could > be used to trigger the gathering, so with a little bit different > architecture, the > performance increases could be achieved. > > Some implementations actually do write gathering with NFSv3, even. Is > this interesting enough to play with? I suspect that just doing the > work for > NFSv2 is not... Also, how do you explain the big performance hit that steve observed? Write gathering is supposed to help performance, but it's a big loss on his test... Lee - 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/