Jens Axboe wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 20 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>>Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>>>Besides, deadline is still the most solid choice.
>>>
>>Deadline will always be the best choice for OLTP workloads. Or CFQ - it
>>should perform the same.
>>
>>All this workload does is seeks all over the disk doing teeny synchronous
>>I/O's. It is the worst-case for AS.
>>
>>What we are trying to do at present is to make AS not _too_ bad for these
>>workloads so that people with mixed workloads or who are not familiar with
>>kernel arcanery don't accidentally end up with something which is
>>significantly slower than it should be.
>>
>>It is an interesting test case.
>>
>
>I understand that. A deadline run is still interesting if there are
>regressions from -mm2 to -mm3, for example. If deadline shows the same
>regression, it's likely not a newly introduced AS bug.
>
You are quite right of course, Jens. I did tell Joel not to worry
about the other schedulers for a while just while I was trying to
get AS even close to their performance. I thought it would take a
bit longer to get there. It appears to be now, so yes, deadline
runs will be nice.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 22:00:30 EST