From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Neil Schemenauer <nas@python.ca>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Marc-Christian Petersen <m.c.p@wolk-project.de>,
Matt <matt@lpbproductions.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][CFT] new IO scheduler for 2.4.20
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 09:40:41 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200305310940.41780.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030530220923.GA404@glacier.arctrix.com>
On Sat, 31 May 2003 08:09, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> The major benefit of this patch is that read latency is much lower while
> lots of writes are occuring. On my machine, running:
>
> while :; do dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1M count=1000 conv=notrunc; done
>
> makes 2.4.20 unusable. With this patch the "write bomb" causes no
> particular problems.
>
> With this version of the patch I've improved the bulk read performance
> of the elevator. The bonnie++ results are now:
>
> -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
> Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP
> 2.4.20 1G 13001 97 34939 18 13034 7 12175 92 34112 14
> 2.4.20-nas 1G 12923 98 36471 17 13340 8 10809 83 35569 13
>
> Note that the "rewrite" and "per-char read" stats are slightly bogus for
> 2.4.20-nas. Reads get a boost in priority over writes. When the
> "per-char read" test has started there is still some writing happening
> from the rewrite test. I think the net effect is that the "rewrite"
> number is too high and the "per-char read" number is too low.
>
> I would be very pleased if someone could run some tests on using bonnie,
> contest, or their other favorite benchmarks and post the results.
Nice to see 2.4 getting some attention. I'll try and get around to contesting
it.
How does this compare to akpm's read-latency2 patch that he posed some time
ago? That seems to make a massive difference but was knocked back for style
or approach.
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-30 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-30 22:09 [PATCH][CFT] new IO scheduler for 2.4.20 Neil Schemenauer
2003-05-30 23:40 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-05-31 0:52 ` Neil Schemenauer
2003-05-30 17:58 ` Robert Love
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-02 17:21 Andreas Dilger
2003-04-17 17:28 Neil Schemenauer
2003-04-17 20:41 ` Andrew Morton
2003-04-20 18:26 ` Neil Schemenauer
2003-04-20 22:06 ` Marc-Christian Petersen
2003-04-21 1:46 ` Neil Schemenauer
2003-04-21 11:33 ` Andrea Arcangeli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200305310940.41780.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.c.p@wolk-project.de \
--cc=matt@lpbproductions.com \
--cc=nas@python.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.