From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, XFS <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Reduce filesystem writeback from page reclaim (again)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:31:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110713153130.GH7529@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1310567487-15367-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 03:31:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> <SNIP>
> The objective of the series - reducing writes from reclaim - is
> met with filesystem writes from reclaim reduced to 0 with reclaim
> in general doing less work. ext3, ext4 and xfs all showed marked
> improvements for fs_mark in this configuration. btrfs looked worse
> but it's within the noise and I'd expect the patches to have little
> or no impact there due it ignoring ->writepage from reclaim.
>
My bad, I accidentally looked at an old report for btrfs based on
older patches. In the report posted with all patches applied, the
performance of btrfs does look better but as the patches should make
no difference, it's still in the noise.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, XFS <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Reduce filesystem writeback from page reclaim (again)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:31:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110713153130.GH7529@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1310567487-15367-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 03:31:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> <SNIP>
> The objective of the series - reducing writes from reclaim - is
> met with filesystem writes from reclaim reduced to 0 with reclaim
> in general doing less work. ext3, ext4 and xfs all showed marked
> improvements for fs_mark in this configuration. btrfs looked worse
> but it's within the noise and I'd expect the patches to have little
> or no impact there due it ignoring ->writepage from reclaim.
>
My bad, I accidentally looked at an old report for btrfs based on
older patches. In the report posted with all patches applied, the
performance of btrfs does look better but as the patches should make
no difference, it's still in the noise.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, XFS <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Reduce filesystem writeback from page reclaim (again)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:31:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110713153130.GH7529@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1310567487-15367-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 03:31:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> <SNIP>
> The objective of the series - reducing writes from reclaim - is
> met with filesystem writes from reclaim reduced to 0 with reclaim
> in general doing less work. ext3, ext4 and xfs all showed marked
> improvements for fs_mark in this configuration. btrfs looked worse
> but it's within the noise and I'd expect the patches to have little
> or no impact there due it ignoring ->writepage from reclaim.
>
My bad, I accidentally looked at an old report for btrfs based on
older patches. In the report posted with all patches applied, the
performance of btrfs does look better but as the patches should make
no difference, it's still in the noise.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-13 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 114+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-13 14:31 [RFC PATCH 0/5] Reduce filesystem writeback from page reclaim (again) Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm: vmscan: Do not writeback filesystem pages in direct reclaim Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 23:34 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-13 23:34 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-13 23:34 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 6:17 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 6:17 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 6:17 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 1:38 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 1:38 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 1:38 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 4:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 4:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 4:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 4:46 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 4:46 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 4:46 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 15:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 15:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 15:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 23:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 23:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 23:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-15 2:22 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-15 2:22 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-15 2:22 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-18 2:22 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-18 2:22 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-18 2:22 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-18 3:06 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-18 3:06 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-18 3:06 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 6:19 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 6:19 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 6:19 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 6:17 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 6:17 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-14 6:17 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-07-13 14:31 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: vmscan: Do not writeback filesystem pages in kswapd except in high priority Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 23:37 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-13 23:37 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-13 23:37 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 6:29 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 6:29 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 6:29 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 11:52 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 11:52 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 11:52 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 13:17 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 13:17 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 13:17 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-15 3:12 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-15 3:12 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-15 3:12 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-13 14:31 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: vmscan: Throttle reclaim if encountering too many dirty pages under writeback Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 23:41 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-13 23:41 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-13 23:41 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 6:33 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 6:33 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 6:33 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: vmscan: Immediately reclaim end-of-LRU dirty pages when writeback completes Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 16:40 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-07-13 16:40 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-07-13 16:40 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-07-13 17:15 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 17:15 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 17:15 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm: writeback: Prioritise dirty inodes encountered by direct reclaim for background flushing Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 21:39 ` Jan Kara
2011-07-13 21:39 ` Jan Kara
2011-07-13 21:39 ` Jan Kara
2011-07-14 0:09 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 0:09 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 0:09 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 7:03 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 7:03 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 7:03 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 23:56 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-13 23:56 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-13 23:56 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 7:30 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 7:30 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 7:30 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 15:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 15:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 15:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 15:49 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 15:49 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 15:49 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 15:31 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2011-07-13 15:31 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] Reduce filesystem writeback from page reclaim (again) Mel Gorman
2011-07-13 15:31 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 0:33 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 0:33 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 0:33 ` Dave Chinner
2011-07-14 4:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 4:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 4:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-14 7:37 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 7:37 ` Mel Gorman
2011-07-14 7:37 ` Mel Gorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110713153130.GH7529@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jweiner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.