From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 16 10:04:42 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8F91065670; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:04:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhellenthal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EF08FC1B; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:04:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywt2 with SMTP id 2so419387ywt.13 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:04:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=agYwHdPPzDLiFEEwp2iy65kUdHMqN/y+hJkCWw8CLaU=; b=EFEeVGJQk7IiX3zWDU/SsGTJu/xz3HkAQew/wSiLXAaBsOZKCMITUDHtk9jSm1zAvO 3EoNrG6qIZHgbIxkY/RU0sGI900qWGpTeFVDaus81L0CACkMCIwGikauX+zUFw9Pcm5q EK2T0H2wn5o1zQqWfes/nOdp/7NlumRNazNoA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=dG0pxRkn5gN6Q/C4g0ORy4H9SZQQEd8gcTfUQvNcewJIDdUe43RZpFElHUe4m64zdc 9uJvFlUB+rYC06M/UwpgHs+bdwT8wtuFzgQqyYWtROt2jY9+uWmO4ibD3l630hxInTpo NGM2YgXYJizmg9rxoqspYgcqXSLif+gE9zDgQ= Received: by 10.151.62.5 with SMTP id p5mr3432456ybk.55.1284631480835; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centel.dataix.local (adsl-99-181-146-122.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net [99.181.146.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t20sm7317013ybm.5.2010.09.16.03.04.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: "J. Hellenthal" Message-ID: <4C91EBB4.9080304@DataIX.net> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 06:04:36 -0400 From: jhell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100908 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andriy Gapon References: <20100908084855.GF2465@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4C874F00.3050605@freebsd.org> <4C8D087B.5040404@freebsd.org> <03537796FAB54E02959E2D64FC83004F@multiplay.co.uk> <4C8D280F.3040803@freebsd.org> <3FBF66BF11AA4CBBA6124CA435A4A31B@multiplay.co.uk> <4C8E4212.30000@freebsd.org> <20100915104635.GA59871@icarus.home.lan> <8E233260F0334BC58B2C07F383939F8E@multiplay.co.uk> <4C9131F6.10807@DataIX.net> <4C91409F.9090204@DataIX.net> <4C91BACD.3080501@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C91BACD.3080501@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:04:42 -0000 On 09/16/2010 02:35, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 16/09/2010 00:54 jhell said the following: >> On 09/15/2010 17:30, Steven Hartland wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "jhell" jhell@DataIX.net >>> >>>> On 09/15/2010 06:54, Steven Hartland wrote: >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Chadwick" >>>>> >>>>>> Looks like Andriy just committed something to HEAD/CURRENT which might >>>>>> address this: >>>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/141305 >>>>> >>>>> Already running that as part of the patches unfortunately, it doesn't >>>>> seem >>>>> to have any effect. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is it ? vm_page_set_validclean(m, off, bytes); >>>> I recall you saying that you added this from earlier in the thread. >>>> could be wrong though but what Andriy committed was the following. >>>> >>>> or ? vm_page_set_valid(m, off, bytes); >>> >>> >>> Ahh good catch I have: >>> if (error == 0) >>> vm_page_set_validclean(m, off, bytes); >>> >>> and not as mentioned by 141305: >>> if (error == 0) >>> vm_page_set_valid(m, off, bytes); >>> >>> Which should it actaully be? >>> >> >> Looking at the manual page vm_page_bits(9) I don't see a >> vm_page_is_validclean so really would it have a effect ?. >> >> > > Maybe the man page doesn't have it, but the function is real :-) > In this case it actually doesn't matter much which one to use, but what was > committed is more correct (as you might have expected). > Yeah that's what I thought since the data is clean in the first place that extra ability to zero off the end bits shouldn't ever need to happen. Notice though I mixed up vm_page_set* with vm_page_is*, I must have been sleeping during that point ;). -- jhell,v