On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:02:14PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:24:50AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Honestly, I'd prefer not to do that because it's a slippery slope. > > I've got plenty more "do stuff in the background via workqueues" > > patches lined up, so if we start adding knobs/mount options to turn > > each of them off "just in case there's an issue". > > > > So far I haven't found any issues at all and I've been running this > > split allocation stack like this in -all- my performance testing for > > the past 2-3 months. I know that is not conclusive, but if the > > bechmarks I've been using to improve XFS performance over the past > > 18 months don't show regressions, that's fairly indicative of the > > fact that most workloads won't even notice the change.... > > Maybe. One thing I'd like to see is stuff like high-iop direct or > O_SYNC I/O that actually calls the allocator. What do you want me to run? I don't have any particularly high IOP hardware here, but I might be able to do something that just hits the BBWC.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
