Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:40:08 +0200 | From | Jan Kara <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix congestion_wait() sync/async vs read/write confusion |
| |
On Tue 14-07-09 09:12:15, Chris Mason wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 01:44:19PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 08-07-09 15:12:38, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:47:03PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > This one isn't great, we currently have broken congestion wait logic in > > > > the kernel. 2.6.30 is impacted as well, so this patch should go to > > > > stable too once it's in -git. I'll let this one simmer until tomorrow, > > > > then ask Linus to pull it. The offending commit breaking this is > > > > 1faa16d22877f4839bd433547d770c676d1d964c. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, it could potentially cause buffered writeout slowdowns in the > > > > kernel. Perhaps the 2.6.30 regression in that area is caused by this? > > > > Would be interesting if the submitter could test. I can't find the list, > > > > CC'ing Rafael. > > > > > > Even if this does slow down some workloads, the bug is not in using the > > > correct flag ;) So, I'd ack this one. > > > > > > Jan Kara was able to reproduce the tiobench 2.6.30 regression, so I've > > > cc'd him and kept the patch below. > > Thanks for the patch Chris. I've remeasured tiobench with the 2.6.30 + > > the fix but it didn't help (which is not too surprising as what I observe > > is most likely CFQ related as there's no regression with NOOP scheduler). > > Just to recall: > > 2.6.29 (CFQ) Avg StdDev > > 8 38.01 40.26 39.69 -> 39.32 0.955092 > > 16 40.09 38.18 40.05 -> 39.44 0.891104 > > > > 2.6.30-rc8 (CFQ) > > 8 36.67 36.81 38.20 -> 37.23 0.69062 > > 16 37.45 36.47 37.46 -> 37.13 0.464351 > > > > 2.6.30-rc8+fix (CFQ) > > 8 37.56 37.38 37.98 -> 37.64 0.251396 > > 16 38.11 36.71 37.18 -> 37.33 0.581741 > > > > So with the fix there's no statistically significant difference and we > > are still below 2.6.29 results. I'm now going to retest with the WRITE_SYNC > > changes reverted. > > Well, its good the patch didn't make things worse ;) I didn't have the > highest hopes that it would resolve the regression, but thanks for > testing! I've now tried to revert everything which looked WRITE_SYNC related but it didn't help either. Now, I'm trying to basically bisect CFQ changes and I'll see whether it goes somewhere...
Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, CR
| |