Re: [performance bug] kernel building regression on 64 LCPUsmachine

From: Jan Kara
Date: Wed Mar 02 2011 - 16:17:56 EST


On Wed 02-03-11 11:13:53, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> 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.
> >> >>  OK 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:
> >> >>  I'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
Doh, how embarrassing ;). Attached is a new version which compiles and
seems to run OK.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR