From: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
To: Stephen Tweedie <sct@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pbadari@us.ibm.com,
Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/6]: Cleanup and rbtree for ext3 reservations in 2.6.9-rc1-mm4
Date: 10 Sep 2004 17:34:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1094862886.1637.7078.camel@w-ming2.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200409071302.i87D2Dus030892@sisko.scot.redhat.com>
On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 06:02, Stephen Tweedie wrote:
> The patches in the following set contain several cleanups for ext3
> reservations, fix a reproducable SMP race, and turn the per-superblock
> linear list of reservations into an rbtree for better scaling.
> These changes have been in rawhide for a couple of weeks, and have
> been undergoing testing both within Red Hat and at IBM.
>
We have run several tests on this set of the reservation changes. We
compared the results w/o reservation, rbtree based reservation vs link
list based reservation. Here is the tiobench sequential test
results.Note that 2.6.8.1-mm4 kernel include the double link based
per-fs reservation tree.
tiobench sequential write throughputs
============================================================
Threads no reservation 2.6.8.1-mm4 2.6.8.1-mm4+rbtree patch
1 29 29 29
4 3 29 29
8 4 28 28
16 3 27 27
32 4 27 27
64 3 27 27
128 2 20 25
256 1 20 24
We did see the rbtree changes scales better on more than 128 threads. We
also run tio random tests, did not see throughput regression there.
We also re-run the dbench, test results showing that these two
reservations(rbtree based vs link based) performs almost equally well.
dbench average throughputs on 4 runs
==================================================
Threads no reservation 2.6.8.1-mm4 2.6.8.1-mm4_rbtree
1 97 93 96
4 234 250 213
8 201 213 213
16 156 168 169
32 73 106 105
64 38 65 67
We had some concerns about the cpu cost for seeky random write workload
with all the reservation changes before. We are doing some tests in that
area too.
Mingming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-11 0:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-07 13:02 Stephen Tweedie
2004-09-11 0:34 ` Mingming Cao [this message]
2004-09-12 7:59 ` Ram Pai
2004-09-22 1:04 ` [Patch] ext3_new_inode() failure case fix Mingming Cao
2004-09-22 6:01 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-22 7:29 ` viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1094862886.1637.7078.camel@w-ming2.beaverton.ibm.com \
--to=cmm@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=pbadari@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sct@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®