From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:46:51 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: PATCH: Trying to get back IO performance (WIP) Message-ID: <20000703114651.G2699@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from quintela@fi.udc.es on Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 02:24:07AM +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Juan J. Quintela" Cc: marcelo@conectiva.com.br, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.rutgers.edu List-ID: --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi, On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 02:24:07AM +0200, Juan J. Quintela wrote: > This patch is against test3-pre2. > It gives here good performance in the first run, and very bad > in the following ones of dbench 48. I am hitting here problems with > the locking scheme. I get a lot of contention in __wait_on_supper. > Almost all the dbench processes are waiting in: > > 0xc013639c __wait_on_super+0x184 (0xc13f4c00) > 0xc01523e5 ext2_alloc_block+0x21 (0xc4840c20, 0x12901d, 0xc7427ea0) Known, and I did a patch for this ages ago. It actually didn't make a whole lot of difference. The last version of the ext2 diffs I did for this are included below. --Stephen --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ext2-super-lock-2.2.8.diff" --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd--