From: Paolo Ornati <ornati@lycos.it>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
gandalf@wlug.westbo.se, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Strange IDE performance change in 2.6.1-rc1 (again)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:12:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200401072112.35334.ornati@lycos.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1073503421.10018.17.camel@dyn319250.beaverton.ibm.com>
On Wednesday 07 January 2004 20:23, Ram Pai wrote:
>
> I tried on my lab machine with scsi disks. (I dont have access currently
> to a spare machine with ide disks.)
>
> I find that reverting the changes in mm/filemap.c and then reverting the
> lazy-read optimization gives much better sequential read performance on
> blockdevices. Is this your observation on IDE disks too?
Yes and No.
I have only tried to revert lazy-read optimization (without any visible
change) so I have reapplied it AND THAN I have reverted changes in
mm/filemap.c... and performance has gone back.
>
> > I don't know why... but it does.
>
> Lets see. I think my theory is partly the reason. But the changes in
> filemap.c seems to be influencing more.
YES, I agree.
I haven't done a lot of tests but it seems to me that the changes in
mm/filemap.c are the only things that influence the sequential read
performance on my disk.
--
Paolo Ornati
Linux v2.4.23
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-07 20:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-02 16:02 Strange IDE performance change in 2.6.1-rc1 (again) Paolo Ornati
2004-01-02 18:08 ` Ed Sweetman
2004-01-02 21:04 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-02 21:27 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-01-03 10:20 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-02 21:32 ` Mike Fedyk
2004-01-02 22:34 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-01-03 11:13 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-03 22:40 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-04 14:30 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-05 23:19 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-07 14:59 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-07 19:23 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-07 20:12 ` Paolo Ornati [this message]
2004-01-07 23:57 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-08 7:31 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-09 1:05 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-09 1:17 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-09 19:15 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-09 19:44 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-10 14:48 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-10 16:00 ` Ed Sweetman
2004-01-10 16:19 ` Ed Sweetman
2004-01-10 17:29 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-10 17:29 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-03-29 15:45 ` Ram Pai
2004-01-04 17:15 ` Buffer and Page cache coherent? was: " Mike Fedyk
2004-01-04 22:10 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-04 23:22 ` Mike Fedyk
2004-01-04 23:32 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-04 23:45 ` Mike Fedyk
2004-01-05 0:23 ` Andrew Morton
2004-01-03 10:20 ` Paolo Ornati
2004-01-03 3:33 ` Tobias Diedrich
2004-01-03 4:15 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-01-03 13:39 ` Tobias Diedrich
2004-01-03 20:56 ` Tobias Diedrich
2004-01-04 3:02 ` jw schultz
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=200401072112.35334.ornati@lycos.it \
--to=ornati@lycos.it \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=gandalf@wlug.westbo.se \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
/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