Re: Linux 2.6.29

Linus Torvalds
2009-04-03T04:18:19Z

Jens - remind us what the problem with AS was wrt CFQ?

There's some write throttling in CFQ, maybe it has some really broken
case?

Linus

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Lennart Sorensen wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 03:00:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I'll test this (and the other suggestions) once i'm out of the merge
> > window.
> >
> > I probably wont test that though ;-)
> >
> > Going back to v2.6.14 to do pre-mutex-merge performance tests was
> > already quite a challenge on modern hardware.
>
> Well after a day of running my mythtv box with anticipatiry rather than
> the default cfq scheduler, it certainly looks a lot better. I haven't
> seen any slowdowns, the disk activity light isn't on solidly (it just
> flashes every couple of seconds instead), and it doesn't even mind
> me lanuching bittornado on multiple torrents at the same time as two
> recordings are taking place and some commercial flagging is taking place.
> With cfq this would usually make the system unusable (and a Q6600 with
> 6GB ram should never be unresponsive in my opinion).
>
> So so far I would rank anticipatory at about 1000x better than cfq for
> my work load. It sure acts a lot more like it used to back in 2.6.18
> times.
>
> --
> Len Sorensen
>