On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:51 pm, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl
> > > > > (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o
> > > > > scheduler or the cfq scheduler.
> > > > >
> > > > > io_load:
> > > > > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > > > > 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42
> > > > > 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81
> > > > > 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83
> > > > > 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03
> > > >
> > > > These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently
> > > > beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and
> > > > not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there.
> > >
> > > I dont think they're fishy - taken in the mm1 context -. I have tested cfq3a
> > > without mm1 and it does beat the baseline. See a previous email I posted with
> > > it.
> >
> > I didn't mean that you have done something fishy, but that there's a
> > fishy interaction between -mm + CFQ :)
> >
>
> It is the CPU scheduler patch. Con has eariler shown that this patch shoots
> io_load in the head. 2.5.60-mm1 did not have that patch.
and process_load, and dbench_load :)
Thanks, makes sense.
-- Jens Axboe- 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 Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:14 EST