v2 mm: balance_dirty_pages. reduce calls to global_page_state to reduce cache references
Subsystems (3)
RFC PATCH 1/1 v2 mm: balance_dirty_pages. reduce calls to global_page_state to reduce cache references
Reducing the number of times balance_dirty_pages calls global_page_state reduces the cache references and so improves write performance on a variety of workloads.
'perf stats' of simple fio write tests shows the reduction in cache access.
Where the test is fio 'write,mmap,600Mb,pre_read' on AMD AthlonX2 with 3Gb memory (dirty_threshold approx 600 Mb)
running each test 10 times, dropping the fasted & slowest values then taking
the average & standard deviation
average (s.d.) in millions (10^6)
2.6.31-rc8 648.6 (14.6)
+patch 620.1 (16.5)
Achieving this reduction is by dropping clip_bdi_dirty_limit as it rereads the counters to apply the dirty_threshold and moving this check up into balance_dirty_pages where it has already read the counters.
Also by rearrange the for loop to only contain one copy of the limit tests allows the pdflush test after the loop to use the local copies of the counters rather than rereading them.
In the common case with no throttling it now calls global_page_state 5 fewer times and bdi_stat 2 fewer.
This version includes the changes suggested by
Wu Fengguang <[email protected]>
----
Thanks to everybody for the feedback & suggestions. This patch is against 2.6.31-rc8
mm/page-writeback.c +38 -67
@@ -260,32 +260,6 @@ static void bdi_writeout_fraction(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, } } -/* -* Clip the earned share of dirty pages to that which is actually available. -* This avoids exceeding the total dirty_limit when the floating averages -* fluctuate too quickly. -*/ -static void clip_bdi_dirty_limit (struct backing_dev_info *bdi, -unsigned long dirty,unsigned long *pbdi_dirty) -{ -unsigned long avail_dirty; - - avail_dirty =global_page_state (NR_FILE_DIRTY ) + -global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK ) + -global_page_state (NR_UNSTABLE_NFS ) + -global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP ); - -if (avail_dirty < dirty) - avail_dirty = dirty - avail_dirty; -else - avail_dirty =0 ; - - avail_dirty +=bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ) + -bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); - - *pbdi_dirty =min (*pbdi_dirty, avail_dirty); -} -static inline void task_dirties_fraction (struct task_struct *tsk,long *numerator,long *denominator) {
@@ -478,7 +452,6 @@ get_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty, bdi_dirty = dirty * bdi->max_ratio /100 ; *pbdi_dirty = bdi_dirty; -clip_bdi_dirty_limit (bdi, dirty, pbdi_dirty);task_dirty_limit (current, pbdi_dirty); } }
@@ -499,7 +472,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping)unsigned long bdi_thresh;unsigned long pages_written =0 ;unsigned long write_chunk =sync_writeback_pages (); - +int dirty_exceeded;struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;for (;;) {
@@ -512,16 +485,36 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping) };get_dirty_limits (&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, - &bdi_thresh, bdi); + &bdi_thresh, bdi); nr_reclaimable =global_page_state (NR_FILE_DIRTY ) + -global_page_state (NR_UNSTABLE_NFS ); - nr_writeback =global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK ); +global_page_state (NR_UNSTABLE_NFS ); + nr_writeback =global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK ) + +global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP ); - bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); - bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); +/* +* In order to avoid the stacked BDI deadlock we need +* to ensure we accurately count the 'dirty' pages when +* the threshold is low. +* +* Otherwise it would be possible to get thresh+n pages +* reported dirty, even though there are thresh-m pages +* actually dirty; with m+n sitting in the percpu +* deltas. +*/ +if (bdi_thresh <2 *bdi_stat_error (bdi)) { + bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat_sum (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); + bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat_sum (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); + }else if (bdi_nr_reclaimable) { + bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); + bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); + } -if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh) + dirty_exceeded = + (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback >= bdi_thresh) + || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback >= dirty_thresh); + +if (!dirty_exceeded)break ;/*
@@ -530,7 +523,11 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping)* when the bdi limits are ramping up. */ if (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback < - (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) /2 ) + (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) /2 ) +break ; + +/* done enough? */ +if (pages_written >= write_chunk)break ;if (!bdi->dirty_exceeded)
@@ -548,38 +545,14 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping)if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) {writeback_inodes (&wbc); pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write; -get_dirty_limits (&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, - &bdi_thresh, bdi); - } - -/* -* In order to avoid the stacked BDI deadlock we need -* to ensure we accurately count the 'dirty' pages when -* the threshold is low. -* -* Otherwise it would be possible to get thresh+n pages -* reported dirty, even though there are thresh-m pages -* actually dirty; with m+n sitting in the percpu -* deltas. -*/ -if (bdi_thresh <2 *bdi_stat_error (bdi)) { - bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat_sum (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); - bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat_sum (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); - }else if (bdi_nr_reclaimable) { - bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); - bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); +/* don't wait if we've done enough */ +if (pages_written >= write_chunk) +continue ; } - -if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh) -break ; -if (pages_written >= write_chunk) -break ;/* We've done our duty */ -congestion_wait (BLK_RW_ASYNC ,HZ /10 ); } -if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback < bdi_thresh && - bdi->dirty_exceeded) +if (!dirty_exceeded && bdi->dirty_exceeded) bdi->dirty_exceeded =0 ;if (writeback_in_progress (bdi))
@@ -593,10 +566,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping)* In normal mode, we start background writeout at the lower * background_thresh, to keep the amount of dirty memory low. */ -if ((laptop_mode && pages_written) || - (!laptop_mode && (global_page_state (NR_FILE_DIRTY ) - +global_page_state (NR_UNSTABLE_NFS ) - > background_thresh))) +if ((laptop_mode && pages_written) || (!laptop_mode && + (nr_reclaimable > background_thresh)))pdflush_operation (background_writeout,0 ); }
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Quoted 24 lines · Richard Kennedy
Reducing the number of times
balance_dirty_pagescallsglobal_page_statereduces the cache references and so improves write performance on a variety of workloads.'perf stats' of simple fio write tests shows the reduction in cache access.
Where the test is fio 'write,mmap,600Mb,pre_read' on AMD AthlonX2 with 3Gb memory (dirty_thresholdapprox 600 Mb)
running each test 10 times, dropping the fasted & slowest values then taking
the average & standard deviationaverage (s.d.) in millions (10^6)2.6.31-rc8 648.6 (14.6)
+patch 620.1 (16.5)Achieving this reduction is by dropping
clip_bdi_dirty_limitas it rereads the counters to apply thedirty_thresholdand moving this check up intobalance_dirty_pageswhere it has already read the counters.Also by rearrange the for loop to only contain one copy of the limit tests allows the pdflush test after the loop to use the local copies of the counters rather than rereading them.
Quoted 5 lines
In the common case with no throttling it now calls
global_page_state5 fewer times andbdi_stat2 fewer.This version includes the changes suggested by
Wu Fengguang <[email protected]>
It seems that an redundant pages_written test can be reduced by
mm/page-writeback.c +1 -5
@@ -526,10 +526,6 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) / 2)break ; -/* done enough? */ -if (pages_written >= write_chunk) -break ; -if (!bdi->dirty_exceeded) bdi->dirty_exceeded =1 ;
@@ -547,7 +543,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;/* don't wait if we've done enough */ if (pages_written >= write_chunk) -continue ; +break ; }congestion_wait (BLK_RW_ASYNC ,HZ /10 ); }
Otherwise the patch looks good to me. Thank you for the nice work!
Quoted 162 lines
Signed-off-by Richard Kennedy <[email protected]>----
Thanks to everybody for the feedback & suggestions. This patch is against 2.6.31-rc8mm/page-writeback.c +36
-63@@ -260,32 +260,6 @@ static void bdi_writeout_fraction(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, } } -/* -* Clip the earned share of dirty pages to that which is actually available. -* This avoids exceeding the total dirty_limit when the floating averages -* fluctuate too quickly. -*/ -static void clip_bdi_dirty_limit (struct backing_dev_info *bdi, -unsigned long dirty,unsigned long *pbdi_dirty) -{ -unsigned long avail_dirty; - - avail_dirty =global_page_state (NR_FILE_DIRTY ) + -global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK ) + -global_page_state (NR_UNSTABLE_NFS ) + -global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP ); - -if (avail_dirty < dirty) - avail_dirty = dirty - avail_dirty; -else - avail_dirty =0 ; - - avail_dirty +=bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ) + -bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); - - *pbdi_dirty =min (*pbdi_dirty, avail_dirty); -} -static inline void task_dirties_fraction (struct task_struct *tsk,long *numerator,long *denominator) {@@ -478,7 +452,6 @@ get_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty, bdi_dirty = dirty * bdi->max_ratio /100 ; *pbdi_dirty = bdi_dirty; -clip_bdi_dirty_limit (bdi, dirty, pbdi_dirty);task_dirty_limit (current, pbdi_dirty); } }@@ -499,7 +472,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping)unsigned long bdi_thresh;unsigned long pages_written =0 ;unsigned long write_chunk =sync_writeback_pages (); - +int dirty_exceeded;struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;for (;;) {@@ -512,16 +485,36 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping) };get_dirty_limits (&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, - &bdi_thresh, bdi); + &bdi_thresh, bdi); nr_reclaimable =global_page_state (NR_FILE_DIRTY ) + -global_page_state (NR_UNSTABLE_NFS ); - nr_writeback =global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK ); +global_page_state (NR_UNSTABLE_NFS ); + nr_writeback =global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK ) + +global_page_state (NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP ); - bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); - bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); +/* +* In order to avoid the stacked BDI deadlock we need +* to ensure we accurately count the 'dirty' pages when +* the threshold is low. +* +* Otherwise it would be possible to get thresh+n pages +* reported dirty, even though there are thresh-m pages +* actually dirty; with m+n sitting in the percpu +* deltas. +*/ +if (bdi_thresh <2 *bdi_stat_error (bdi)) { + bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat_sum (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); + bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat_sum (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); + }else if (bdi_nr_reclaimable) { + bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); + bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); + } -if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh) + dirty_exceeded = + (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback >= bdi_thresh) + || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback >= dirty_thresh); + +if (!dirty_exceeded)break ;/* @@ -530,7 +523,11 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping)* when the bdi limits are ramping up. */ if (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback < - (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) /2 ) + (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) /2 ) +break ; + +/* done enough? */ +if (pages_written >= write_chunk)break ;if (!bdi->dirty_exceeded)@@ -548,38 +545,14 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping)if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) {writeback_inodes (&wbc); pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write; -get_dirty_limits (&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, - &bdi_thresh, bdi); - } - -/* -* In order to avoid the stacked BDI deadlock we need -* to ensure we accurately count the 'dirty' pages when -* the threshold is low. -* -* Otherwise it would be possible to get thresh+n pages -* reported dirty, even though there are thresh-m pages -* actually dirty; with m+n sitting in the percpu -* deltas. -*/ -if (bdi_thresh <2 *bdi_stat_error (bdi)) { - bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat_sum (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); - bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat_sum (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); - }else if (bdi_nr_reclaimable) { - bdi_nr_reclaimable =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_RECLAIMABLE ); - bdi_nr_writeback =bdi_stat (bdi,BDI_WRITEBACK ); +/* don't wait if we've done enough */ +if (pages_written >= write_chunk) +continue ; } - -if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh) -break ; -if (pages_written >= write_chunk) -break ;/* We've done our duty */ -congestion_wait (BLK_RW_ASYNC ,HZ /10 ); } -if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback < bdi_thresh && - bdi->dirty_exceeded) +if (!dirty_exceeded && bdi->dirty_exceeded) bdi->dirty_exceeded =0 ;if (writeback_in_progress (bdi))@@ -593,10 +566,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping)* In normal mode, we start background writeout at the lower * background_thresh, to keep the amount of dirty memory low.
mm/page-writeback.c static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping) · line 573
Quoted 10 lines
mm/page-writeback.c +2
-4*/ -if ((laptop_mode && pages_written) || - (!laptop_mode && (global_page_state (NR_FILE_DIRTY ) - +global_page_state (NR_UNSTABLE_NFS ) - > background_thresh))) +if ((laptop_mode && pages_written) || (!laptop_mode && + (nr_reclaimable > background_thresh)))pdflush_operation (background_writeout,0 ); }
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Quoted 56 lines · Wu Fengguang
Quoted 24 lines · Richard Kennedy
Reducing the number of times
balance_dirty_pagescallsglobal_page_statereduces the cache references and so improves write performance on a variety of workloads.'perf stats' of simple fio write tests shows the reduction in cache access.
Where the test is fio 'write,mmap,600Mb,pre_read' on AMD AthlonX2 with 3Gb memory (dirty_thresholdapprox 600 Mb)
running each test 10 times, dropping the fasted & slowest values then taking
the average & standard deviationaverage (s.d.) in millions (10^6)2.6.31-rc8 648.6 (14.6)
+patch 620.1 (16.5)Achieving this reduction is by dropping
clip_bdi_dirty_limitas it rereads the counters to apply thedirty_thresholdand moving this check up intobalance_dirty_pageswhere it has already read the counters.Also by rearrange the for loop to only contain one copy of the limit tests allows the pdflush test after the loop to use the local copies of the counters rather than rereading them.
Quoted 5 lines
In the common case with no throttling it now calls
global_page_state5 fewer times andbdi_stat2 fewer.This version includes the changes suggested by
Wu Fengguang <[email protected]>It seems that an redundant
pages_writtentest can be reduced bymm/page-writeback.c +1
-5@@ -526,10 +526,6 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) / 2)break ; -/* done enough? */ -if (pages_written >= write_chunk) -break ; -if (!bdi->dirty_exceeded) bdi->dirty_exceeded =1 ;@@ -547,7 +543,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;/* don't wait if we've done enough */ if (pages_written >= write_chunk) -continue ; +break ; }congestion_wait (BLK_RW_ASYNC ,HZ /10 ); }
Quoted 4 lines
Otherwise the patch looks good to me. Thank you for the nice work!
Reviewed-by Wu Fengguang <[email protected]>
Thank you.
I'll give your suggestion a try & run some tests. I think you're right it should be better. Not re-reading the global counters again should be of some benefit!
regards
Richard
Quoted 63 lines · Richard Kennedy
Quoted 56 lines · Wu Fengguang
Quoted 24 lines · Richard Kennedy
Reducing the number of times
balance_dirty_pagescallsglobal_page_statereduces the cache references and so improves write performance on a variety of workloads.'perf stats' of simple fio write tests shows the reduction in cache access.
Where the test is fio 'write,mmap,600Mb,pre_read' on AMD AthlonX2 with 3Gb memory (dirty_thresholdapprox 600 Mb)
running each test 10 times, dropping the fasted & slowest values then taking
the average & standard deviationaverage (s.d.) in millions (10^6)2.6.31-rc8 648.6 (14.6)
+patch 620.1 (16.5)Achieving this reduction is by dropping
clip_bdi_dirty_limitas it rereads the counters to apply thedirty_thresholdand moving this check up intobalance_dirty_pageswhere it has already read the counters.Also by rearrange the for loop to only contain one copy of the limit tests allows the pdflush test after the loop to use the local copies of the counters rather than rereading them.
Quoted 5 lines
In the common case with no throttling it now calls
global_page_state5 fewer times andbdi_stat2 fewer.This version includes the changes suggested by
Wu Fengguang <[email protected]>It seems that an redundant
pages_writtentest can be reduced bymm/page-writeback.c +1
-5@@ -526,10 +526,6 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) / 2)break ; -/* done enough? */ -if (pages_written >= write_chunk) -break ; -if (!bdi->dirty_exceeded) bdi->dirty_exceeded =1 ;@@ -547,7 +543,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;/* don't wait if we've done enough */ if (pages_written >= write_chunk) -continue ; +break ; }congestion_wait (BLK_RW_ASYNC ,HZ /10 ); }Quoted 4 lines
Otherwise the patch looks good to me. Thank you for the nice work!
Reviewed-by Wu Fengguang <[email protected]>Thank you.
Quoted 6 lines
I'll give your suggestion a try & run some tests. I think you're right it should be better. Not re-reading the global counters again should be of some benefit!
regards
Richard
I've tried this change and ran a series of tests overnight but it turns out to be worse. The existing patch does better overall.
e.g. fio 600mb
cache references average (s.d.) in millions (10^6)
2.6.31-rc8 648.6 (14.6)
+patch 620.1 (16.5)
patch+change 635.6 (10.2)
I'm not sure how to trace this to work out exactly why, but without the change the patch is closer to the behavior of the existing code.
So I think we should go with it as is.
regards
Richard
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Quoted 12 lines · Richard Kennedy
Reducing the number of times
balance_dirty_pagescallsglobal_page_statereduces the cache references and so improves write performance on a variety of workloads.'perf stats' of simple fio write tests shows the reduction in cache access.
Where the test is fio 'write,mmap,600Mb,pre_read' on AMD AthlonX2 with 3Gb memory (dirty_thresholdapprox 600 Mb)
running each test 10 times, dropping the fasted & slowest values then taking
the average & standard deviation
Quoted 3 lines
average (s.d.) in millions (10^6)2.6.31-rc8 648.6 (14.6)
+patch 620.1 (16.5)
This patch looks good to me, I have workloads too here where up to 10% of the time is spent in balance_dirty_pages() because of this. I'll give this patch a go on the box and test in question tomorrow, but it looks promising.
Signature · 1 line
Jens Axboe
Quoted 13 lines · Jens Axboe
Quoted 12 lines · Richard Kennedy
Reducing the number of times
balance_dirty_pagescallsglobal_page_statereduces the cache references and so improves write performance on a variety of workloads.'perf stats' of simple fio write tests shows the reduction in cache access.
Where the test is fio 'write,mmap,600Mb,pre_read' on AMD AthlonX2 with 3Gb memory (dirty_thresholdapprox 600 Mb)
running each test 10 times, dropping the fasted & slowest values then taking
the average & standard deviation
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 3 lines
average (s.d.) in millions (10^6)2.6.31-rc8 648.6 (14.6)
+patch 620.1 (16.5)This patch looks good to me, I have workloads too here where up to 10% of the time is spent in
balance_dirty_pages()because of this. I'll give this patch a go on the box and test in question tomorrow, but it looks promising.
Thanks Jens,
It will be interesting to see how it works on different hardware & workload. How many cores are you going to run it on?
wow 10% in balance_dirty_pages! Is that on a large server? or do you think its peculiar to your workload?
regards
Richard
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Quoted 24 lines · Richard Kennedy
Quoted 13 lines · Jens Axboe
Quoted 12 lines · Richard Kennedy
Reducing the number of times
balance_dirty_pagescallsglobal_page_statereduces the cache references and so improves write performance on a variety of workloads.'perf stats' of simple fio write tests shows the reduction in cache access.
Where the test is fio 'write,mmap,600Mb,pre_read' on AMD AthlonX2 with 3Gb memory (dirty_thresholdapprox 600 Mb)
running each test 10 times, dropping the fasted & slowest values then taking
the average & standard deviationQuoted 9 lines
Quoted 3 lines
average (s.d.) in millions (10^6)2.6.31-rc8 648.6 (14.6)
+patch 620.1 (16.5)This patch looks good to me, I have workloads too here where up to 10% of the time is spent in
balance_dirty_pages()because of this. I'll give this patch a go on the box and test in question tomorrow, but it looks promising.
Quoted 6 lines
Thanks Jens,
It will be interesting to see how it works on different hardware & workload. How many cores are you going to run it on?
wow 10% inbalance_dirty_pages! Is that on a large server? or do you think its peculiar to your workload?
~10% is rounded, it was 8.9x%. Pretty bad! It's a 64-way, and there's nothing special about the workload (just buffered IO with 4k blocks). It's just going rather fast.
Signature · 1 line
Jens Axboe