From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v5][RFC] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using CFQ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:06:18 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1277242502-9047-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> <4C21D442.8080703@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, vgoyal@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Tao Ma Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26628 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751423Ab0FWNGZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:06:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C21D442.8080703@oracle.com> (Tao Ma's message of "Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:30:42 +0800") Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tao Ma writes: > Hi Jeff, > > On 06/23/2010 05:34 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Running iozone with the fsync flag, or fs_mark, the performance of CFQ is >> far worse than that of deadline for enterprise class storage when dealing >> with file sizes of 8MB or less. I used the following command line as a >> representative test case: >> >> fs_mark -S 1 -D 10000 -N 100000 -d /mnt/test/fs_mark -s 65536 -t 1 -w 4096 -F >> >> When run using the deadline I/O scheduler, an average of the first 5 numbers >> will give you 448.4 files / second. CFQ will yield only 106.7. With >> this patch series applied (and the two patches I sent yesterday), CFQ now >> achieves 462.5 files / second. > which 2 patches? Could you paste the link or the subject? Just want to > make my test env like yours. ;) > As Joel mentioned in another mail, ocfs2 also use jbd/jbd2, so I'd > like to give it a try and give you some feedback about the test. http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/21/307: [PATCH 1/2] cfq: always return false from should_idle if slice_idle is set to zero [PATCH 2/2] cfq: allow dispatching of both sync and async I/O together Thanks in advance for the testing! -Jeff