On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 07:25:51AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > Ok, before I tried the f2fs git I made another short test with the > original 3.18.21 f2fs, and it was as fast as before. Then I used the > faulty f2fs module,. which forced a reboot. > > Now I started to redo the 3.18.21 test + git f2fs, with the same parameters > (specifically, -s90), and while it didn't start out to be as slow as 4.2.1, > it's similarly slow. > > After 218GiB, I stopped the test, giving me an average of 50MiB/s. > > Here is typical dstat output (again, dsk/sde): > > http://ue.tst.eu/7a40644b3432e2932bdd8c1f6b6fc32d.txt > > So less read behaviour than with 4.2.1, but also very slow writes. > > That means the performance drop moves with f2fs, not the kernel version. > > This is the resulting status: > > http://ue.tst.eu/6d94e9bfad48a433bbc6f7daeaf5eb38.txt > > Just for fun I'll start doing a -s64 run.
Okay, so before finding bad commits, if possible, can you get block traces? It would be good to see block_rq_complete and block_bio_complete tracepoints. Thanks, > > -- > The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG > -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net > ----==-- _ generation > ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann > --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de > -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
