Re: 2.5.36-mm1 dbench 512 profiles

From: William Lee Irwin III (
Date: Fri Sep 20 2002 - 15:39:38 EST

On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:51:13AM -0700, Hanna Linder wrote:
> I mentioned it at OLS too. It was the point of my talk. Next
> time I will request a non 10am time slot!

10AM is relatively early in the morning for me. =)

On Friday, September 20, 2002 05:03:58 -0700 William Lee Irwin III <> wrote:
>> take its place. Ugly. OTOH the qualitative difference is striking. The
>> interactive responsiveness of the machine, even when entirely unloaded,
>> is drastically improved, along with such nice things as init scripts
>> and kernel compiles also markedly faster. I suspect this is just the
>> wrong benchmark to show throughput benefits with.
>> Also notable is that the system time was significantly reduced though
>> I didn't log it. Essentially a long period of 100% system time is
>> entered after a certain point in the benchmark, during which there are
>> few (around 60 or 70) context switches in a second, and the duration
>> of this period was shortened.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 11:51:13AM -0700, Hanna Linder wrote:
> Bill, you are saying that replacing dcache_rcu significantly
> improved system response time among other things?
> Perhaps it is time to reconsider replacing fastwalk with dcache_rcu.
> Viro? What are your objections?

Basically, the big ones get laggy, and laggier with more cpus. This fixed
a decent amount of that.

Another thing to note is that the max bandwidth of these disks is 40MB/s,
so we're running pretty close to peak anyway. I need to either get an FC
cable or something to see larger bandwidth gains.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:31 EST