From: Paolo Ornati <ornati@lycos.it>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
gandalf@wlug.westbo.se, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Strange IDE performance change in 2.6.1-rc1 (again)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:12:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200401072112.35334.ornati@lycos.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1073503421.10018.17.camel@dyn319250.beaverton.ibm.com>
On Wednesday 07 January 2004 20:23, Ram Pai wrote:
>
> I tried on my lab machine with scsi disks. (I dont have access currently
> to a spare machine with ide disks.)
>
> I find that reverting the changes in mm/filemap.c and then reverting the
> lazy-read optimization gives much better sequential read performance on
> blockdevices. Is this your observation on IDE disks too?
Yes and No.
I have only tried to revert lazy-read optimization (without any visible
change) so I have reapplied it AND THAN I have reverted changes in
mm/filemap.c... and performance has gone back.
>
> > I don't know why... but it does.
>
> Lets see. I think my theory is partly the reason. But the changes in
> filemap.c seems to be influencing more.
YES, I agree.
I haven't done a lot of tests but it seems to me that the changes in
mm/filemap.c are the only things that influence the sequential read
performance on my disk.
--
Paolo Ornati
Linux v2.4.23
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-07 20:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-02 16:02 Strange IDE performance change in 2.6.1-rc1 (again) Paolo Ornati
2004-01-02 18:08 ` Ed Sweetman
2004-01-02 21:04 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-02 21:27 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-01-03 10:20 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-02 21:32 ` Mike Fedyk
2004-01-02 22:34 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-01-03 11:13 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-03 22:40 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-04 14:30 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-05 23:19 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-07 14:59 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-07 19:23 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-07 20:12 ` Paolo Ornati [this message]
2004-01-07 23:57 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-08 7:31 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-09 1:05 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-09 1:17 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-09 19:15 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-09 19:44 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-10 14:48 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-10 16:00 ` Ed Sweetman
2004-01-10 16:19 ` Ed Sweetman
2004-01-10 17:29 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-10 17:29 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-03-29 15:45 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-04 17:15 ` Buffer and Page cache coherent? was: " Mike Fedyk
2004-01-04 22:10 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-04 23:22 ` Mike Fedyk
2004-01-04 23:32 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-04 23:45 ` Mike Fedyk
2004-01-05 0:23 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-03 10:20 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-03 3:33 ` Tobias Diedrich
2004-01-03 4:15 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-01-03 13:39 ` Tobias Diedrich
2004-01-03 20:56 ` Tobias Diedrich
2004-01-04 3:02 ` jw schultz
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=200401072112.35334.ornati@lycos.it \
--to=ornati@lycos.it \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=gandalf@wlug.westbo.se \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
/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.