| To: | Yann Dupont <Yann.Dupont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 4 Jan 2012 07:33:31 -0500 |
| Cc: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4F02BA35.9040909@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <CACaf2ab-YjXAFm767MmRU5iuOmvkqQW3ZTfQewD5SGvF-opgYQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EF1A224.2070508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EF1F6DD.8020603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EF21DD2.3060004@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111221222623.GF23662@dastard> <4EF2F702.4050902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EF30E5D.7060608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F0181A2.5010505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120102203543.GP23662@dastard> <4F02BA35.9040909@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 09:20:05AM +0100, Yann Dupont wrote: > >As it is, I can't see any material difference between the traces. > >both reads and writes are taking the same amount of time to service, > >so I don't think there's any problem here. > > ok, > > > >I do recall that some years ago that we changed one of the ways we > > Do you recall exactly what some years ago means ? Is this post 2.6.26 era ? The only thing that I remember is Jens switching xfs_buf_wait_unpin from schedule to io_schedule in "block: remove per-queue plugging", which went into Linux 2.6.39. With this processed that wait for buffers to be unpinned now count towards the load average. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39, Yann Dupont |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39, Yann Dupont |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39, Yann Dupont |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Bad performance with XFS + 2.6.38 / 2.6.39, Yann Dupont |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |