1. 16 5月, 2012 2 次提交
    • J
      jbd: Write journal superblock with WRITE_FUA after checkpointing · fd2cbd4d
      Jan Kara 提交于
      If journal superblock is written only in disk's caches and other transaction
      starts reusing space of the transaction cleaned from the log, it can happen
      blocks of a new transaction reach the disk before journal superblock. When
      power failure happens in such case, subsequent journal replay would still try
      to replay the old transaction but some of it's blocks may be already
      overwritten by the new transaction. For this reason we must use WRITE_FUA when
      updating log tail and we must first write new log tail to disk and update
      in-memory information only after that.
      Signed-off-by: NJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
      fd2cbd4d
    • J
      jbd: Split updating of journal superblock and marking journal empty · 9754e39c
      Jan Kara 提交于
      There are three case of updating journal superblock. In the first case, we want
      to mark journal as empty (setting s_sequence to 0), in the second case we want
      to update log tail, in the third case we want to update s_errno. Split these
      cases into separate functions. It makes the code slightly more straightforward
      and later patches will make the distinction even more important.
      Signed-off-by: NJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
      9754e39c
  2. 11 4月, 2012 1 次提交
    • J
      jbd: Refine commit writeout logic · 2db938be
      Jan Kara 提交于
      Currently we write out all journal buffers in WRITE_SYNC mode. This improves
      performance for fsync heavy workloads but hinders performance when writes
      are mostly asynchronous, most noticably it slows down readers and users
      complain about slow desktop response etc.
      
      So submit writes as asynchronous in the normal case and only submit writes as
      WRITE_SYNC if we detect someone is waiting for current transaction commit.
      
      I've gathered some numbers to back this change. The first is the read latency
      test. It measures time to read 1 MB after several seconds of sleeping in
      presence of streaming writes.
      
      Top 10 times (out of 90) in us:
      Before		After
      2131586		697473
      1709932		557487
      1564598		535642
      1480462		347573
      1478579		323153
      1408496		222181
      1388960		181273
      1329565		181070
      1252486		172832
      1223265		172278
      
      Average:
      619377		82180
      
      So the improvement in both maximum and average latency is massive.
      
      I've measured fsync throughput by:
      fs_mark -n 100 -t 1 -s 16384 -d /mnt/fsync/ -S 1 -L 4
      
      in presence of streaming reader. The numbers (fsyncs/s) are:
      Before		After
      9.9		6.3
      6.8		6.0
      6.3		6.2
      5.8		6.1
      
      So fsync performance seems unharmed by this change.
      Signed-off-by: NJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
      2db938be
  3. 25 6月, 2011 1 次提交
    • L
      jbd: Add fixed tracepoints · 99cb1a31
      Lukas Czerner 提交于
      This commit adds fixed tracepoint for jbd. It has been based on fixed
      tracepoints for jbd2, however there are missing those for collecting
      statistics, since I think that it will require more intrusive patch so I
      should have its own commit, if someone decide that it is needed. Also
      there are new tracepoints in __journal_drop_transaction() and
      journal_update_superblock().
      
      The list of jbd tracepoints:
      
      jbd_checkpoint
      jbd_start_commit
      jbd_commit_locking
      jbd_commit_flushing
      jbd_commit_logging
      jbd_drop_transaction
      jbd_end_commit
      jbd_do_submit_data
      jbd_cleanup_journal_tail
      jbd_update_superblock_end
      Signed-off-by: NLukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
      Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
      Signed-off-by: NJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
      99cb1a31