From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [git patches] IDE update Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:20:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20050708102056.GA7172@elte.hu> References: <1120567900.12942.8.camel@linux> <42CA84DB.2050506@rainbow-software.org> <1120569095.12942.11.camel@linux> <42CAAC7D.2050604@rainbow-software.org> <20050705142122.GY1444@suse.de> <6m8mc1lhug5d345uqikru1vpsqi6hciv41@4ax.com> <20050708084817.GB7050@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:58789 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262449AbVGHKVc (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:21:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050708084817.GB7050@suse.de> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Linus Torvalds , Grant Coady , Ondrej Zary , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Tomt , Al Boldi , 'Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz' , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jens Axboe wrote: > But! I used hdparm -t solely, 2.6 was always ~5% faster than 2.4. But > using -Tt slowed down the hd speed by about 30%. So it looks like some > scheduler interaction, perhaps the memory timing loops gets it marked > as batch or something? to check whether that could be the case, could you try: nice -n -20 hdparm -t /dev/hdc does that produce different results? Ingo