Re: [performance bug] kernel building regression on 64 LCPUs machine

[Jeff Moyer]

Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue 01-03-11 14:56:43, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> On Wed 23-02-11 16:24:47, Alex,Shi wrote:
>> >>> Though these patches can not totally recovered the problem, but they are
>> >>> quite helpful with ccache enabled situation. It increase 10% performance
>> >>> on 38-rc1 kernel.
>> >> ÂOK and what was the original performance drop with WRITE_SYNC change?
>> >>
>> >>> I have tried to enabled they to latest rc6 kernel but failed. the vmstat output is here:
>> >>> with patches:
>> >> ÂI'm attaching patches rebased on top of latest Linus's tree.
>> >> Corrado, could you possibly run your fsync-heavy tests so that we see
>> >> whether there isn't negative impact of my patches on your fsync-heavy
>> >> workload? Thanks.
>> > The workload was actually Jeff's, and the stalls that my change tried
>> > to mitigate showed up on his enterprise class storage. Adding him so
>> > he can test it.
>> 
>> Sorry for the late reply.  You can use either fs_mark or iozone to
>> generate an fsync-heavy workload.  The test I did was to mix this with a
>> sequential reader.  If you can point me at patches, I should be able to
>> test this.
>   The latest version of patches is attached to:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/24/125

Perhaps you should fix up the merge conflicts, first?  ;-)

+<<<<<<< HEAD
        tid = transaction->t_tid;
        need_to_start = !tid_geq(journal->j_commit_request, tid);
+=======
+       __jbd2_log_start_commit(journal, transaction->t_tid, false);
+>>>>>>> jbd2: Refine commit writeout logic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/