On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:37:44PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
There isn't a huge number of those blocks, but if inode #1220 was
modified in the previous transaction which is now being committed, and
we then need to modify and write out inode #1221 in the current
contention, and they share the same inode table block, that would
cause the contention. That probably doesn't happen that often in a
synchronous code path, but it probably happens more often that you're
thinking. I still think the fsync() problem is the much bigger deal,
and solving the contention problem isn't going to solve the fsync()
latency problem with ext3 data=ordered mode.
Yes, but we need to be clear whether this was an fsync() problem or
some other random delay problem. If it's the fsync() problem,
obviously data=writeback will solve the fsync() latency delay problem.
(As will using delayed allocation in ext4 or XFS.)
- Ted
--