Ric Wheeler wrote: > Solofo.Ramangalahy@xxxxxxxx wrote: >> Hi Ric, >> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:29:55 -0400, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx> said: >>>>>>> >> Ric> We are going to try and poke at this - do you suspect a single or >> Ric> multi-threaded test would work best? >> >> I've performed some tests: >> http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20081013-2.6.27-rc9-ext4-1-akpm-fix-run6/ >> http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20081013-2.6.27-rc9-ext4-1-akpm-fix-run6/results_sorted.txt.html >> >> I now realize that the results may not be valid since I used kvm, but >> they do show variation wrt. the number of threads. >> >> So you may want to test both single and multi-threaded. >> >> > A very thorough test, but the results don't seem to point to a > consistent winner. > > I agree that running without KVM in the picture might be very > interesting. Eric has some similar tests underway, I think that his > results were also inconclusive so far... Yep, I've yet to find an fs_mark invocation, at least, which shows a clear winner. I also ran w/ akpm's suggested io_schedule watcher patch and never see us waiting on this lock (I did set it to 1s though, which is probably too long for my storage). -Eric -- 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
