From: Mingming Cao Subject: Re: ext4 compile bench is slower Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:58:57 -0700 Message-ID: <1217033937.6394.7.camel@mingming-laptop> References: <20080709165655.GB29109@skywalker> <20080709215728.GD6239@webber.adilger.int> <20080710042453.GA6764@skywalker> <20080714144442.GA1041@skywalker> <20080714100153.0f9756e3@ichigo> <20080721222357.56471dd5@gara> <20080723005850.GF19325@webber.adilger.int> <20080723083033.4bdddf08@gara> <20080725215901.GA3181@webber.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "Jose R. Santos" , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:33453 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752051AbYGZA7I (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:59:08 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6Q0x7gT017713 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:59:07 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m6Q0x7CW035730 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:59:07 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6Q0x6C6005116 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:59:06 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20080725215901.GA3181@webber.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =E5=9C=A8 2008-07-25=E4=BA=94=E7=9A=84 18:00 -0400=EF=BC=8CAndreas Dilg= er=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > On Jul 23, 2008 08:30 -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:58:50 -0600 > > Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > Jose, do you have ext3 results on the same system > > > for the benchmarks you ran? That would tell us how much improvem= ent we > > > get from other ext4 features (e.g. extents vs. block allocation) = and how > > > much from flex_bg. > >=20 > > No I dont, I tried doing some runs yesterday but after updating the > > kernel, the results flex_bg are about the same as without it and ex= t3 > > is a lot faster than ext4. Im investigating to see if I messed up = the > > kernel build somehow or if we have a regression. >=20 > There was another report that the current ext4 code is no longer fast= er > at compilebench than ext3. >=20 > > Valerie did a very comprehensive set of comparisons that could be > > useful for the presentation. I'll try to see if I can recreate thi= s > > once I figure out the regression im seeing but would this work for = now? > >=20 > > http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20080530/ffsb-readwrite-2.6.26-r= c2.html >=20 Between 2.6.26-rc2 to now the biggest change is the locking ordering change (page lock and transaction) and the new ordered mode, and the delalloc get updated to adopt the new locking order. I wonder if that's the cause.... Mingming > Cheers, Andreas > -- > Andreas Dilger > Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group > Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. >=20 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html