Re: jbd2: don't wake kjournald unnecessarily

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:29:11PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > old JBD: AIM7 jobs/min 97624.39;  got 78193 jbd wakeups
> > new JBD: AIM7 jobs/min 85929.43;  got 6306999 jbd wakeups, 6264684 extra wakeups
>   Yeah, that's a lot. My guess would be *a lot* of processes are hanging in
> start_this_handle() and waiting for transaction commit. Each of them calls
> __log_start_commit() and things add up. Thanks for getting these numbers.

Yeah, wow.  That would imply that there are a huge number of processes
that get hung up in start_this_handle(), and they are waking up the
journal before the kjournald has a chance to set T_LOCKED (since then
they would get blocked earlier in start_this_handle).

Given that, I wonder if the following change would actually help or
hurt things.  Eric, would you be willing to ask your perf team to try
testing out these patches?

						- Ted
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux