On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:57:16AM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 01:16:09PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:25:08PM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 09:53:11AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > I'm indeed happy that you don't care that much on that regression
> > > > introduced by me ;-)
> > >
> > > Heh.
> > >
> > > BTW, do these tests run to ENOSPC?
> >
> > Nope. Shall ENOSPC (performance) be tested?
> >
> > > > 10829.00 +4.3% 11296.00 TOTAL xfs:xfs_delalloc_enospc
> > >
> > > This implies that it does.
> >
> > Not really. The USB key partition size is 7.1GB.
> > Even in the fastest 1dd case, only 4GB data is written:
>
> There's a couple of ways this can be tripping ENOSPC during delayed
> allocation. Speculative preallocation is the most likely cause given
> that for a 4GB file being written sequentially it will try to
> preallocate a 4GB chunk for the next delalloc extent....
Yeah I suspected some heuristic allocation, too.
> And by triggering this path, it will force data writeback to occur
> through the xfssyncd workqueue. i.e. the writeback behaviour that is
> occurring is not what you are expecting it to be - XFS is detecting
> a potential ENOSPC problem, and taking steps to flush delalloc data
> much faster than writeback is doing.
OK.
> > wfg@bee /export/writeback% cat fat/UKEY-thresh=100M/xfs-1dd-1-3.2.0-rc3/ls-files
> > 131 -rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 4060078080 Dec 8 15:57 /fs/sdb3/zero-1
>
> What's the dd command line you are using?
It's a loop of
dd bs=$bs if=/dev/zero of=$mnt/zero-$i &
where bs=4k by default.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
