From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:42:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:42:30 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:1724 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:42:30 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:51:49 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest Message-ID: <20030216095149.GA6521@suse.de> References: <200302162046.42103.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302162046.42103.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote: > Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl > (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o > scheduler or the cfq scheduler. > > io_load: > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42 > 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81 > 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83 > 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03 These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there. -- Jens Axboe