From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751228AbWFHIN4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 04:13:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751298AbWFHINz (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 04:13:55 -0400 Received: from smtp.ustc.edu.cn ([202.38.64.16]:29124 "HELO ustc.edu.cn") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751228AbWFHINy (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 04:13:54 -0400 Message-ID: <349754431.09938@ustc.edu.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:13:52 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu To: Voluspa Cc: akpm@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, diegocg@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] readahead: initial method - expected read size - fix fastcall Message-ID: <20060608081352.GB5515@mail.ustc.edu.cn> Mail-Followup-To: Fengguang Wu , Voluspa , akpm@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, diegocg@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <349406446.10828@ustc.edu.cn> <20060604020738.31f43cb0.akpm@osdl.org> <1149413103.3109.90.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060605031720.0017ae5e.lista1@comhem.se> <349562623.17723@ustc.edu.cn> <20060608094356.5c1272cc.lista1@comhem.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060608094356.5c1272cc.lista1@comhem.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org It's interesting that copying of sparse file is more efficient with small readahead size :) I get the same conclusion, though with smaller differences: SUMMARY user sys cpu total ARA, 1M 0.15 6.28 82.80 7.73 ARA, 128k 0.14 6.09 85.60 7.26 STOCK, 128k 0.15 6.05 85.60 7.22 TEST CASE wfg ~% ll work/sparse -rw-r--r-- 1 wfg wfg 1.6G 2006-05-21 15:11 work/sparse wfg ~% free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 501 496 5 0 5 191 -/+ buffers/cache: 300 201 Swap: 127 0 127 wfg ~% time cp work/sparse /dev/null ARA, 1M cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.15s user 6.35s system 80% cpu 8.125 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.14s user 6.28s system 84% cpu 7.556 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.14s user 6.25s system 82% cpu 7.744 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.15s user 6.23s system 85% cpu 7.495 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.16s user 6.30s system 83% cpu 7.719 total ARA, 128k cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.15s user 6.07s system 86% cpu 7.224 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.15s user 6.05s system 84% cpu 7.334 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.14s user 6.18s system 86% cpu 7.328 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.13s user 6.11s system 86% cpu 7.217 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.14s user 6.06s system 86% cpu 7.179 total STOCK, 128k cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.16s user 6.01s system 86% cpu 7.162 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.14s user 6.10s system 86% cpu 7.222 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.14s user 6.04s system 86% cpu 7.186 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.15s user 6.02s system 85% cpu 7.210 total cp work/sparse /dev/null 0.14s user 6.09s system 85% cpu 7.320 total Wu