From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: 2.6.30-rc deadline scheduler performance regression for iozone over NFS Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 19:45:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20090522234508.GC9076@fieldses.org> References: <20090512204433.7eb69075.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1242258338.5407.244.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1242311620.6560.14.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1242587454.17796.2.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1242587524.17796.3.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Trond Myklebust , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olga Kornievskaia , Jim Rees , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Moyer Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:15:22AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Trond Myklebust writes: > > > On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 15:11 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 11:00 -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > >> > Sorry for the previous, stupid question. I applied the patch in > >> > addition the last one and here are the results: > >> > > >> > 70327 > >> > 71561 > >> > 68760 > >> > 69199 > >> > 65324 > >> > > >> > A packet capture for this run is available here: > >> > http://people.redhat.com/jmoyer/trond2.pcap.bz2 > >> > > >> > Any more ideas? ;) > >> > >> Yep. I've got 2 more patches for you. With both of them applied, I'm > >> seeing decent performance on my own test rig. The first patch is > >> appended. I'll send the second in another email (to avoid attachments). > > > > Here is number 2. It is incremental to all the others... > > With all 4 patches applied, these are the numbers for 5 runs: > > 103168 > 101212 > 103346 > 100842 > 103172 > > It's looking much better, but we're still off by a few percent. Thanks > for the quick turnaround on this, Trond! If you submit these patches, > feel free to add: I'd like to take a look and run some tests of my own when I get back from vacation next week. Then assuming no problems I'm inclined to queue them up for 2.6.31, and, in the meantime, revert the autotuning patch temporarily for 2.6.30--under the assumption that autotuning is still the right thing to do, but that this is too significant a regression to ignore, and Trond's work is too involved to submit for 2.6.30 this late in the process. --b. > > Tested-by: Jeff Moyer > > Cheers, > Jeff