[linux-cifs-client] Re: [PATCH 6/6] cifs: don't retry on blocking sends

Steve French smfrench at gmail.com
Mon Dec 1 18:06:16 GMT 2008


On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:41:18 -0600
> "Steve French" <smfrench at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > While we're at it, my testing shows that blocking sends give better
>> > performance in general than non-blocking. Is there any reason to keep
>> > non-blocking sends in this code at all? As a mount option, it's not
>> > very helpful -- most users are going to have no idea when to use it.
>>
>> I was planning on removing the non-blocking sends in 2.6.29, but my
>> testing a few weeks ago to Samba 3, especially on localhost, showed a
>> slight performance gain with non-blocking sends.   Until this can be
>> proved false, I think we need to keep them.
>>
>
> How much performance gain were you seeing? I saw the exact opposite -- sightly better performance with blocking sends, but the difference was so small that it really didn't matter (<<1%).

Of the four combinations I tried (nonblocking/noautotune,
blocking/autotune, nonblocking/autotune, blocking/noautotune), the
nonblocking cases were fastest, but usually by less than 3%.   More
data needed


-- 
Thanks,

Steve


More information about the linux-cifs-client mailing list