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 04:43:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:43:46 -0500 Received: from c16639.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.244.5]:7822 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:43:44 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:53:36 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin References: <200302162046.42103.kernel@kolivas.org> <20030216095149.GA6521@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20030216095149.GA6521@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200302162053.36119.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:51 pm, Jens Axboe wrote: > 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. I dont think they're fishy - taken in the mm1 context -. I have tested cfq3a without mm1 and it does beat the baseline. See a previous email I posted with it. Con