From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
Cc: jens.axboe@oracle.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: reorder balance_dirty_pages to improve (some) write performance
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:57:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090727155739.0e96b9e3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1248445717.19856.63.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:28:37 +0100
Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Reorder balance_dirty_pages to do less work in the default case &
> improve write performance in some cases.
>
> Running simple fio mmap write tests on x86_64 with 3gb of memory on
> 2.6.31-rc3 where each test was run 10 times, dropping the slowest &
> fastest results the average write speeds are
>
> size rc3 | +patch difference
> MiB/s (s.d.)
>
> 400m 374.75 ( 8.15) | 382.575 ( 8.24) + 7.825
> 500m 363.625 (10.91) | 378.375 (10.86) +14.75
> 600m 308.875 (10.86) | 374.25 ( 7.91) +65.375
> 700m 188 ( 4.75) | 209 ( 7.23) +21
> 800m 140.375 ( 2.56) | 154.5 ( 2.98) +14.275
> 900m 124.875 ( 0.99) | 125.5 ( 9.62) +0.625
>
>
> This patch helps write performance when the test size is close to the
> allowed number of dirty pages (approx 600m on this machine). Once the
> test size becomes larger than 900m there is no significant difference.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
> ----
>
> This change only make a difference to workloads where the number of
> dirty pages is close to (dirty_ratio * memory size). Once a test writes
> more than that the speed of the disk is the most important factor so any
> effect of this patch is lost.
> I've only tried this on my desktop, so it really needs testing on
> different hardware.
> Does anyone feel like trying it ?
So what does the patch actually do?
AFACIT the main change is to move this:
if (bdi->dirty_exceeded)
bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0;
from after the loop and into the body of the loop.
So that we no longer clear dirty_exceeded in the three other places
where we break out of the loop.
IOW, dirty_exceeded can be left true (even if it shouldn't be?) on exit
from balance_dirty_pages().
What was the rationale for leaving dirty_exceeded true in those cases,
and why did it speed up that workload?
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-27 22:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-24 14:28 Richard Kennedy
2009-07-27 22:57 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-07-29 10:05 ` Richard Kennedy
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=20090727155739.0e96b9e3.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richard@rsk.demon.co.uk \
/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®