On Wed 30-01-13 11:29:02, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed 30-01-13 00:26:58, Ted Tso wrote: > >> 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? > > Umm, I don't see anything. Forgot to attach them? > > > > Here I catched the two patches: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/216768/ > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/216767/ Ah, OK. Thanks for the pointer. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
