From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] readahead:add blk_run_backing_dev Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:35:21 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20090527113211.6891.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20090527020909.GB17658@localhost> <6.0.0.20.2.20090527110937.0770c420@172.19.0.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Wu Fengguang , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "jens.axboe@oracle.com" To: Hisashi Hifumi Return-path: Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:51928 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754454AbZE0CfY (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 May 2009 22:35:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20090527110937.0770c420@172.19.0.2> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > >> >even consumed 9% of a CPU, so where on earth has the kernel gone to? > >> > > >> >Have you been able to reproduce this in your testing? > >> > >> Yes, this test on my environment is reproducible. > > > >Hisashi, does your environment have some special configurations? > > Hi. > My testing environment is as follows: > Hardware: HP DL580 > CPU:Xeon 3.2GHz *4 HT enabled > Memory:8GB > Storage: Dothill SANNet2 FC (7Disks RAID-0 Array) > > I did dd to this disk-array and got improved performance number. > > I noticed that when a disk is just one HDD, performance improvement > is very small. thas's odd. Why your patch depend on transfer rate difference?