On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 08:51:27AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:58:32AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2008 12:58 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > Perhaps we track the average time a commit takes to occur, and then if > > > the current transaction start time is < than the avg commit time we sleep > > > and wait for more things to join the transaction, and then we commit. > > > How does that idea sound? Thanks, > > > > The drawback of this approach is that if the thread waits an extra "average > > transaction time" for the transaction to commit then this will increase the > > average transaction time each time, and it still won't tell you if there > > needs to be a wait at all. > > > > I'm not talking about the average transaction life, as you say it would be > highly dependant on random things that have nothing to do with the transaction > time (waiting for locks and such). I'm measuring the time it takes for the > actual commit to take place, so I record the start time in > journal_commit_transaction when we set running_transaction = NULL, and then the > end time right before the wakeup() at the end of journal_commit_transaction, > that way there is an idea of how long the committing of a transaction to disk > happens. If we only have two threads doing work and fsyncing, its going to be a > constant time, because we'll only be writing a certain number of buffers each > time. > Hmm now that I think about it you are right, if the thread waits then the time the transaction was running could be greater than the commit time and this wouldn't help. Though one would hope that dirtying pagecache would still be several times faster than writing to disk so any amount of waiting wouldn't be too much of a big deal, and waiting too long would hurt in our current case anyway. Thanks, Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
