Prev: [patch 3/3] jffs2: Fixup rb_root initializations to use RB_ROOT
Next: [PATCH 05/15] readahead: limit readahead size for small memory systems
From: James Cloos on 23 Feb 2010 21:30
M> You're right, it doesn't say that anymore in 2.6.31, so I think I'm
M> indeed running with barriers on.

When barriers were added to ext4, I saw a similar slowdown on lock- and
sync- heavy workloads.

Based on a recent thread on the ext4 list I've started using deadline
rather than cfq on that disk. There are some slowdowns on that disk's
other partition, but the overall throughput is significantly better than
using the combination of cfq, ext4 and barriers.

You might want to test out deadline and/or noop.

Cf: /sys/block/*/queue/scheduler

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos(a)jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [patch 3/3] jffs2: Fixup rb_root initializations to use RB_ROOT
Next: [PATCH 05/15] readahead: limit readahead size for small memory systems