DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=NrwpuE+lCj+v0AJ4JJbH/2jeGr7JI5gb1sfRKGfJLT8oTrFf0aMuoq8nFK2VUsPS3z
         fQI1AnJbYmKLsnuWM88QI13IqzEo6zsgIX4fzd6XGLJwqZRxeJFuYJo7CEOvUVU286X6
         zdEazB+p2OCoD+XdTcrGtceE6FMdG/i9RLIdA=
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:00:34 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, chris.mason@oracle.com,
       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: <20090606010033.GB7809@nowhere>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090605211438.GA11650@duck.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1719
Lines: 48

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).


Heh indeed, I was confused with the colors here but yes pdflush has
a faster total and a higher unfairness with noop, at least with this test.


>   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.


Good idea, I'll try it out so that there wouldn't have any per superblock
ordering there, or whathever that could be.

Thanks.

 
> 									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/