public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Neil Schemenauer <nas@python.ca>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Marc-Christian Petersen <m.c.p@wolk-project.de>,
	Matt <matt@lpbproductions.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][CFT] new IO scheduler for 2.4.20
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 09:40:41 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200305310940.41780.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030530220923.GA404@glacier.arctrix.com>

On Sat, 31 May 2003 08:09, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> The major benefit of this patch is that read latency is much lower while
> lots of writes are occuring.  On my machine, running:
>
>  while :; do dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1M count=1000 conv=notrunc; done
>
> makes 2.4.20 unusable.  With this patch the "write bomb" causes no
> particular problems.
>
> With this version of the patch I've improved the bulk read performance
> of the elevator.  The bonnie++ results are now:
>
>                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
>                Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP
> 2.4.20           1G 13001  97 34939  18 13034   7 12175  92 34112  14
> 2.4.20-nas       1G 12923  98 36471  17 13340   8 10809  83 35569  13
>
> Note that the "rewrite" and "per-char read" stats are slightly bogus for
> 2.4.20-nas.  Reads get a boost in priority over writes.  When the
> "per-char read" test has started there is still some writing happening
> from the rewrite test.  I think the net effect is that the "rewrite"
> number is too high and the "per-char read" number is too low.
>
> I would be very pleased if someone could run some tests on using bonnie,
> contest, or their other favorite benchmarks and post the results.

Nice to see 2.4 getting some attention. I'll try and get around to contesting 
it.

How does this compare to akpm's read-latency2 patch that he posed some time 
ago? That seems to make a massive difference but was knocked back for style 
or approach.

Con

  reply	other threads:[~2003-05-30 23:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-05-30 22:09 [PATCH][CFT] new IO scheduler for 2.4.20 Neil Schemenauer
2003-05-30 23:40 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-05-31  0:52   ` Neil Schemenauer
2003-05-30 17:58     ` Robert Love
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-02 17:21 Andreas Dilger
2003-04-17 17:28 Neil Schemenauer
2003-04-17 20:41 ` Andrew Morton
2003-04-20 18:26   ` Neil Schemenauer
2003-04-20 22:06     ` Marc-Christian Petersen
2003-04-21  1:46       ` Neil Schemenauer
2003-04-21 11:33 ` Andrea Arcangeli

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200305310940.41780.kernel@kolivas.org \
    --to=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=m.c.p@wolk-project.de \
    --cc=matt@lpbproductions.com \
    --cc=nas@python.ca \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox