[Top] [All Lists]

Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs)

To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: page fault scalability (ext3, ext4, xfs)
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:14:21 -0700
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130815011101.GA3572@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <520BB9EF.5020308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130814194359.GA22316@xxxxxxxxx> <520BED7A.4000903@xxxxxxxxx> <20130814230648.GD22316@xxxxxxxxx> <CALCETrVaRQ3WQ5++Uu_0JTaVnjUugAaAhqQK__7r5YWvLxpAhw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130815011101.GA3572@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8
On 08/14/2013 06:11 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The point is that if the goal is to measure page fault scalability, we
> shouldn't have this other stuff happening as the same time as the page
> fault workload.

will-it-scale does several different tests probing at different parts of
the fault path:


It does that both for process and threaded workloads which lets it get
pretty good coverage of different areas of code.

I only posted data from half of one of these tests here because it was
the only one that I found that both had noticeable overhead in the
filesystem code.  It also showed substantial, consistent, and measurable
deltas between the different filesystems.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>