Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > The way to get the best possible dbench numbers in CPU-bound dbench 
> > runs, you have to throw away the scheduler completely, and do this 
> > instead:
> > 
> >  - first execute all requests of client 1
> >  - then execute all requests of client 2
> >  ....
> >  - execute all requests of client N
> 
> Rubbish. [...]

i've actually implemented that about a decade ago: i've tracked down 
what makes dbench tick, i've implemented the kernel heuristics for it 
to make dbench scale linearly with the number of clients - just to be 
shot down by Linus about my utter rubbish approach ;-)

> [...] If you do that you'll not get enough I/O in parallel to 
> schedule the disk well (not that most of our I/O schedulers are 
> doing the job well, and the vm writeback threads then mess it up and 
> the lack of Arjans ioprio fixes then totally screw you) </rant>

the best dbench results come from systems that have enough RAM to 
cache the full working set, and a filesystem intelligent enough to not 
insert bogus IO serialization cycles (ext3 is not such a filesystem).

The moment there's real IO it becomes harder to analyze but the same 
basic behavior remains: the more unfair the IO scheduler, the "better" 
dbench results we get.

	Ingo