[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NFS client latencies
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 16:14 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> on den 30.03.2005 Klokka 11:56 (-0800) skreiv Andrew Morton:
> > > That's normal and cannot be avoided: when writing, we have to look for
> > > the existence of old nfs_page requests. The reason is that if one does
> > > exist, we must either coalesce our new dirty area into it or if we
> > > can't, we must flush the old request out to the server.
> >
> > One could use the radix-tree tagging stuff so that the gang lookup only
> > looks up pages which are !NFS_WBACK_BUSY.
> Yes. Together with the radix tree-based sorting of dirty requests,
> that's pretty much what I've spent most of today doing. Lee, could you
> see how the attached combined patch changes your latency numbers?

Different code path, and the latency is worse. See the attached ~7ms

[unhandled content-type:application/x-bzip]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.063 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site