From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl, jack@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix congestion_wait() sync/async vs read/write confusion
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:44:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090714114419.GA17633@duck.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090708191238.GE18008@think>
On Wed 08-07-09 15:12:38, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:47:03PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This one isn't great, we currently have broken congestion wait logic in
> > the kernel. 2.6.30 is impacted as well, so this patch should go to
> > stable too once it's in -git. I'll let this one simmer until tomorrow,
> > then ask Linus to pull it. The offending commit breaking this is
> > 1faa16d22877f4839bd433547d770c676d1d964c.
> >
> > Meanwhile, it could potentially cause buffered writeout slowdowns in the
> > kernel. Perhaps the 2.6.30 regression in that area is caused by this?
> > Would be interesting if the submitter could test. I can't find the list,
> > CC'ing Rafael.
>
> Even if this does slow down some workloads, the bug is not in using the
> correct flag ;) So, I'd ack this one.
>
> Jan Kara was able to reproduce the tiobench 2.6.30 regression, so I've
> cc'd him and kept the patch below.
Thanks for the patch Chris. I've remeasured tiobench with the 2.6.30 +
the fix but it didn't help (which is not too surprising as what I observe
is most likely CFQ related as there's no regression with NOOP scheduler).
Just to recall:
2.6.29 (CFQ) Avg StdDev
8 38.01 40.26 39.69 -> 39.32 0.955092
16 40.09 38.18 40.05 -> 39.44 0.891104
2.6.30-rc8 (CFQ)
8 36.67 36.81 38.20 -> 37.23 0.69062
16 37.45 36.47 37.46 -> 37.13 0.464351
2.6.30-rc8+fix (CFQ)
8 37.56 37.38 37.98 -> 37.64 0.251396
16 38.11 36.71 37.18 -> 37.33 0.581741
So with the fix there's no statistically significant difference and we
are still below 2.6.29 results. I'm now going to retest with the WRITE_SYNC
changes reverted.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-14 11:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-08 18:47 Jens Axboe
2009-07-08 19:12 ` Chris Mason
2009-07-14 11:44 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2009-07-14 13:12 ` Chris Mason
2009-07-14 14:40 ` Jan Kara
2009-07-08 19:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-07-08 22:35 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-07-08 22:44 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-07-09 12:47 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-09 14:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20090714114419.GA17633@duck.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/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®