Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's

[Andre Hedrick]

Okay I now have to create TCQ for ATA becasue I am not going to lose again
now that I am winning ;-)

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Chris Mason wrote:

> 
> 
> On Friday, March 02, 2001 12:39:01 PM -0600 Steve Lord <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> [ file_fsync syncs all dirty buffers on the FS ]
> > 
> > So it looks like fsync is going to cost more for bigger devices. Given the
> > O_SYNC changes Stephen Tweedie did, couldnt fsync look more like this:
> > 
> >	 down(&inode->i_sem);
> >         filemap_fdatasync(ip->i_mapping);
> >         fsync_inode_buffers(ip);
> >         filemap_fdatawait(ip->i_mapping);
> >	 up(&inode->i_sem);
> > 
> 
> reiserfs might need to trigger a commit on fsync, so the fs specific fsync
> op needs to be called.  But, you should not need to call file_fsync in the
> XFS fsync call (check out ext2's)
> 
> For why ide is beating scsi in this benchmark...make sure tagged queueing
> is on (or increase the queue length?).  For the xlog.c test posted, I would
> expect scsi to get faster than ide as the size of the write increases.
> 
> -chris
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
ASL Kernel Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASL, Inc.                                     Toll free: 1-877-ASL-3535
1757 Houret Court                             Fax: [phone]
Milpitas, CA 95035                            Web: www.aslab.com