From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:43:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20130814194359.GA22316@thunk.org> References: <520BB9EF.5020308@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andi Kleen , Jan Kara , LKML , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Andy Lutomirski , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Tim Chen To: Dave Hansen Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <520BB9EF.5020308@linux.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Thanks dave for doing this comparison. Is there any chance you can check whether lockstats shows anything interesting? > Test case is this: > > https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale/blob/master/tests/page_fault3.c One interesting thing about the test case. It looks like the first time through the while loop, the file will need to be extended (since it is a new tempfile). But subsequent times through the list the blocks for the file will already be allocated. If the file is prezero'ed ahead of time, so we're only measuring the cost of the write page fault, and we take block allocation out of the comparison, do we see the same scalability curve? Thanks, - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs