On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 04:29:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I did the plain revert as well, just to have a baseline. > > Ahh, I ended up not expecting you to get this done until after rc1 was > out, so I in the meantime just merged my fix instead rather than leave > the expected scheduling-while-atomic problem. Yeah, I wasn't sure I'd be able to do the runs, but it was a rainy afternoon and this was more fun than cleaning. Really glad something got in for rc1 either way. > > And just as well that you did a baseline, since apparently the numbers > are all over the map. I don't see how your hack and dave's original > can _possibly_ differ that much, but they clearly did on your xfs > test. So there's probably huge variance that depends on random > details. I don't think the XFS numbers can be trusted too much since it was basically bottlenecked behind that single pegged CPU. It was bouncing around and I couldn't quite track it down to a process name (or perf profile). The btrfs numbers were much more consistent, but your patch is still a win over plain 4.2. > > I'll leave things as they are until we have something that looks a bit > more believable ;) We can build from here, thanks Linus. -chris -- 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
