Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 02:23:40 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
       Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
       Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, david@fromorbit.com,
       hch@infradead.org, yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com,
       richard@rsk.demon.co.uk, damien.wyart@free.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v9
Message-ID: <20090606002339.GH11650@duck.suse.cz>
References: <1243511204-2328-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <20090604152040.GA6007@nowhere> <20090604120726.708a2211.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090604191309.GA4862@nowhere> <20090604195013.GB11363@kernel.dk> <20090604201012.GD11363@kernel.dk> <20090604223449.GA13780@nowhere> <20090605191528.GV11363@kernel.dk> <20090605211438.GA11650@duck.suse.cz> <20090606001814.GD3824@think>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090606001814.GD3824@think>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1693
Lines: 37

On Fri 05-06-09 20:18:15, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 11:14:38PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Fri 05-06-09 21:15:28, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 05 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > The result with noop is even more impressive.
> > > > 
> > > > See: http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/frederic/dbench-noop.pdf
> > > > 
> > > > Also a comparison, noop with pdflush against noop with bdi writeback:
> > > > 
> > > > http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/frederic/dbench-noop-cmp.pdf
> > > 
> > > OK, so things aren't exactly peachy here to begin with. It may not
> > > actually BE an issue, or at least now a new one, but that doesn't mean
> > > that we should not attempt to quantify the impact.
> >   What looks interesting is also the overall throughput. With pdflush we
> > get to 2.5 MB/s + 26 MB/s while with per-bdi we get to 2.7 MB/s + 13 MB/s.
> > So per-bdi seems to be *more* fair but throughput suffers a lot (which
> > might be inevitable due to incurred seeks).
> >   Frederic, how much does dbench achieve for you just on one partition
> > (test both consecutively if possible) with as many threads as have those
> > two dbench instances together? Thanks.
> 
> Is the graph showing us dbench tput or disk tput?  I'm assuming it is
> disk tput, so bdi may just be writing less?
  Good, question. I was assuming dbench throughput :).

									Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/