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
next prev parent 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