From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:58:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:58:17 -0400 Received: from lilly.ping.de ([62.72.90.2]:37637 "HELO lilly.ping.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:58:00 -0400 Date: 23 Sep 2001 15:28:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20010923152841.A9671@planetzork.spacenet> From: jogi@planetzork.ping.de To: "Chris Mason" Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Beau Kuiper" Subject: Re: [PATCH] reiserfs speedup for 2.4.9+ In-Reply-To: <1696760000.1001194777@tiny> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <1696760000.1001194777@tiny>; from mason@suse.com on Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 05:39:37PM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 05:39:37PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > Hello everyone, Hello Chris, > Beau pointed me towards a performance bug in reiserfs, where reiserfs_write_super would be called excessively. > > Turns out that 2.4.9 included some new super handling code that > interacted poorly with how reiserfs uses kupdated calls to > write_super to trigger writebacks of metadata. > > This is most obvious with benchmarks like bonnie++, where > 2.4.9 and 2.4.10 reiserfs do very poorly. > > This patch makes things much better in my tests, I'd appreciate > a few more testers. The only risk is reiserfs using slightly > more memory, but only if I've screwed something up. Just to share my two cents. First I have to tell that the skipping of alsaplayer playing .wav files I experienced during kernel compiles or other activities is almost completly gone. Furthermore I did some performance testing of kernel compiles (actions that are done: untar kernel, patch kernel, make -j50 bzImage modules, 5 times in a row). These are the results of plain 2.4.10-pre14aa1: Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 6:25.90 Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 6:15.43 Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 6:01.95 Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 6:12.56 Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 6:35.61 And here are the results of 2.4.10-pre14aa1 + your patch: Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 5:23.55 Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 5:32.21 Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 5:34.77 Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 6:17.55 Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 5:49.31 Is the performance fix also required for 2.4.9-acXX ? Regards, Jogi -- Well, yeah ... I suppose there's no point in getting greedy, is there? << Calvin & Hobbes >>