Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751972Ab0HAXC2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:02:28 -0400 Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:35833 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751811Ab0HAXC1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:02:27 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:02:25 -0400 From: "Ted Ts'o" To: Kay Diederichs Cc: linux , Ext4 Developers List , Karsten Schaefer Subject: Re: ext4 performance regression 2.6.27-stable versus 2.6.32 and later Message-ID: <20100801230225.GC27573@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ted Ts'o , Kay Diederichs , linux , Ext4 Developers List , Karsten Schaefer References: <4C508A54.7070002@uni-konstanz.de> <20100730022055.GL4506@thunk.org> <4C533DB0.5020608@uni-konstanz.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C533DB0.5020608@uni-konstanz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1595 Lines: 33 On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:01:36PM +0200, Kay Diederichs wrote: > whereas for 2.6.32.16 the result is typically > Filesystem type is: ef53 > File size of > /mnt/md5/scratch/nfs-test/tmp/xds/frames/h2g28_1_00000.cbf is > 6229688 (1521 blocks, blocksize 4096) > ext logical physical expected length flags > 0 0 826376200 1521 eof > /mnt/md5/scratch/nfs-test/tmp/xds/frames/h2g28_1_00000.cbf: 1 extent found OK, so 2.6.32 is actually doing a better job laying out the files.... The blktrace will be interesting, but at this point I'm wondering if this is a generic kernel-wide writeback regression. At $WORK we've noticed some performance regressions between 2.6.26-based kernels and 2.6.33- and 2.6.34-based kernels with both ext2 and ext4 (in no journal mode) that we've been trying to track down. We have a pretty large number of patches applied to both 2.6.26 and 2.6.33/34 which is why I haven't mentioned it up until now, but at this point it seems pretty clear there are some writeback issues in the mainline kernel. There are half a dozen or so patch series on LKML that are addressing writeback in one way or another, and writeback is a major topic at the upcoming Linux Storage and Filesystem workshop. So if this is the cause, hopefully there will be some improvements in this area in the near future. - Ted -- 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/