From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:50:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:50:19 -0400 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.226]:9278 "EHLO blount.mail.mindspring.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:50:06 -0400 Subject: Re: Feedback on preemptible kernel patch xfs From: Robert Love To: Gerold Jury Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200109211229.f8LCT9J19687@hal.grips.com> In-Reply-To: <1000581501.32705.46.camel@phantasy> <3BA94B2E.99FABD43@grips.com> <1000947409.4348.58.camel@phantasy> <200109211229.f8LCT9J19687@hal.grips.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Evolution-Format: text/plain X-Mailer: Evolution/0.13.99+cvs.2001.09.20.15.42 (Preview Release) Date: 21 Sep 2001 15:50:29 -0400 Message-Id: <1001101835.7296.63.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2001-09-21 at 08:29, Gerold Jury wrote: > On Thursday 20 September 2001 02:56, Robert Love wrote: > > I am surprised, you should see a difference, especially with the > > latencytest. Silly question, but you both applied the patch and enabled > > the config statement, right? > > > Really, i have checked twice. > The patch could, by the way, write a line to the syslog when enabled. OK, I believe you :) Yes, but I find all the `NET4.0 loaded!' as crap as it is. If CONFIG_PREEMPT is defined, rest assured the code is correct. > All the filesystem operations happend on the xfs partitions. > I noticed more equally distributed read/write operations with smaller slices > during big copy jobs on xfs. > This effect may well come from the preemption patch. I used a spare partition > for the test, so the filesystem was in the same state with both kernels > during the tests. > Xfs usually delays the write operations and does them in bigger blocks. > The behavior of XFS has changed with the kernel versions towards this > direction anyway but is clearly different with the preemption patch. > > I will redo the latency tests with the standard Xfree86 nvidia driver. > It may give a different picture. > The graphics test and the /proc test have shown the highest latency's. > Both involve the xserver (proc for the xterm). > The other tests have been around 5-6 msec in both cases. > > And i will do the dbench test of course. Very good. Please let me know. -- Robert M. Love rml at ufl.edu rml at tech9.net