Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>
> rwhron@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>> The benchmark is hitting a pathologoical case. Yeah, it's a
>>> problem, but
>>> it's not as bad as tiobench indicates.
>>>
> Its interesting that deadline does so much better for this case
> though. I wonder if any other differences in mm could cause it?
> A run with deadline on mm would be nice to see. IIRC my tests
> showed AS doing as well or better than deadline in smp tiobench.
> The bad random read performance is a problem too, because the
> fragmentation should only add to the randomness.
> I'll have to investigate this further.
>
Are you using TCQ by any chance? If so, what do the results look
like with TCQ off?
-
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 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:00:23 EST