Re: Performance regression in IO scheduler still there

[Jan Kara]

On Wed 11-11-09 12:43:30, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >   Sadly, I don't see the improvement you can see :(. The numbers are the
> > same regardless low_latency set to 0:
> > 2.6.32-rc5 low_latency = 0:
> > 37.39 36.43 36.51 -> 36.776667 0.434920
> >   But my testing environment is a plain SATA drive so that probably
> > explains the difference...
> 
> I just retested (10 runs for each kernel) on a SATA disk with no NCQ
> support and I could not see a difference.  I'll try to dig up a disk
> that support NCQ.  Is that what you're using for testing?
  I don't think I am. How do I find out?

>               2.6.29    2.6.32-rc6,low_latency=0
> ----------------------------------
> Average:      34.6648   34.4475
> Pop.Std.Dev.: 0.55523   0.21981
  Hmm, strange. Miklos Szeredi tried tiobench on his machine and he also
saw the regression. I'll try to think what could make the difference.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/