Re: [GIT PULL] Ext3 latency fixes

[Posted April 13, 2009 by corbet]

From:		Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>
To:		Jens Axboe <jens.axboe-AT-oracle.com>
Subject:		Re: [GIT PULL] Ext3 latency fixes
Date:		Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID:		<alpine.LFD.2.00.0904040854470.3915@localhost.localdomain>
Cc:		Theodore Tso <tytso-AT-mit.edu>, Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4-AT-vger.kernel.org>
Archive-link:		Article

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> Big nack on this patch. Ted, this is EXACTLY where I told you we saw big
> write regressions (sqlite performance drops by a factor of 4-5). Do a
> git log on fs/buffer.c and see the original patch (which does what your
> patch does) and the later revert. No idea why you are now suggestion
> making that exact change?!

Jens, if I can re-create the 'fsync' times (I haven't yet), then the 
default scheduler _will_ be switched to AS.

> Low latency is nice, but not at the cost of 4-5x throughput for real
> world cases.

I'm sorry, but that fsync thing _is_ a real-world case, and it's the one 
that a hell of a lot more people care about than some idiotic sqlite 
throughput issue.

You have a test-case now. Consider it a priority, or consider CFQ to be a 
"for crazy servers that only care about throughput".

Quite frankly, the fact that I can see _seconds_ of latencies with a 
really good SSD is not acceptable. The fact that it is by design is even 
less so.

Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple.

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

(Log in to post comments)