Re: [patch] get_request starvation fix

From: Daniel Phillips (phillips@bonn-fries.net)
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 05:13:45 EST

Next message: Daniel Phillips: "Re: [PATCH] queue barrier support"
Previous message: Giacomo A. Catenazzi: "Re: kbuild [which is not only ...2]"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] get_request starvation fix"
Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] get_request starvation fix"
Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] get_request starvation fix"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On February 16, 2002 08:32 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> However, contrary to my earlier guess, the request batching does
> make a measurable difference. Changing the code so that we wake up
> a sleeper as soon as any request is freed costs maybe 30%
> on `dbench 64'.

Is this consistent with results on other IO benchmarks?

--
Daniel
-
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/

Next message: Daniel Phillips: "Re: [PATCH] queue barrier support"
Previous message: Giacomo A. Catenazzi: "Re: kbuild [which is not only ...2]"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] get_request starvation fix"
Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] get_request starvation fix"
Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: [patch] get_request starvation fix"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:10 EST