| To: | Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs-trace-ilock-more |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:26:51 -0500 |
| Cc: | Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4EE8F7F0.7070207@xxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20111214024040.GA17780@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111214182750.GH11114@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EE8F7F0.7070207@xxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 02:24:32PM -0500, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > That's pretty much the explanation. With heavy reader load, buffered > writes were stalling for 80 ms and sometimes longer. I suspected it > was contention on the ilock and the tracing with that patch > demonstrated a delay there. Since we were chasing a similar issue at > another site, it seemed worthwhile to just keep it around. We're still > tracking down the cause. I'm not sure if more recent kernels have the > same issue as there's been quite a lot of churn. Ok. I was a bit surprised that it was one out of only two XFS updates that went into a recent SLES security errata, and I never heard about it before. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: log all dirty inodes in xfs_fs_sync_fs, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs-trace-ilock-more, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs-trace-ilock-more, Jeff Mahoney |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs-trace-ilock-more, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |