Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:27:08 -0500 (EST) | From | Jeremy Hansen <> |
| |
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 02, 2001 12:39:01 PM -0600 Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com> wrote: > > > > [ file_fsync syncs all dirty buffers on the FS ] > > > > > > So it looks like fsync is going to cost more for bigger devices. Given the > > > O_SYNC changes Stephen Tweedie did, couldnt fsync look more like this: > > > > > > down(&inode->i_sem); > > > filemap_fdatasync(ip->i_mapping); > > > fsync_inode_buffers(ip); > > > filemap_fdatawait(ip->i_mapping); > > > up(&inode->i_sem); > > > > > > > reiserfs might need to trigger a commit on fsync, so the fs specific fsync > > op needs to be called. But, you should not need to call file_fsync in the > > XFS fsync call (check out ext2's) > > > Right, this was just a generic example, the fsync_inode_buffers would be in > the filesystem specific fsync callout - this was more of a logical > example of what ext2 could do. XFS does completely different stuff in there > anyway. > > > > > For why ide is beating scsi in this benchmark...make sure tagged queueing > > is on (or increase the queue length?). For the xlog.c test posted, I would > > expect scsi to get faster than ide as the size of the write increases. > > I think the issue is the call being used now is going to get slower the > larger the device is, just from the point of view of how many buffers it > has to scan.
Well, I tried making the device smaller, creating just a 9gig partition on the raid array and this made no different in the xlog results.
-jeremy
> > > > -chris > > Steve > > >
-- this is my sig.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |