On Wednesday 05 February 2003 17:33, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi Jens,
> Sure, I had that one already. BTW, I discovered that the default io
thank you :)
> scheduler forgets to honor the cmd_flags, it's supposed to break like
> the noop does (see very first hunk in very first file). Must have
> removed that by mistake some time ago... This applies both to the
> 2.4.21-pre4 patch posted and this one.
well, I am impressed, really!
As you described in the patch:
+ * For journalled file systems, doing ordered writes on a commit
+ * block instead of explicitly doing wait_on_buffer (which is bad
+ * for performance) can be a big win. Block drivers supporting this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't have benchmarks handy yet but as far as I can _feel_, this is a _MUST_
(I repeat: a _MUST_ for 2.4.21). And I am very good in feeling slowdowns for
interactivity :)
I am running it for quite some hours now with 2.4.20. Well, maybe the
nr_requests = 16 and read/write passovers changes in the elevator code give
us more smoothness than w/o but in my theoretical mind, this should drop
throughput. I also noticed, these changes aren't in your 2.4.21 patch. Can
you explain why it is in 2.4.20 patch or why it isn't in 2.4.21 patch ? :)
Thanks alot.
/ME calls out for Con to do a benchmark with the 2.4.21 patch.
ciao, Marc
-
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 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 22:00:18 EST