From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 01:40:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 01:40:10 -0500 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:9617 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 01:40:09 -0500 Message-ID: <3DBE2EBE.DC860105@digeo.com> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:46:22 -0800 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.42 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas , Jens Axboe CC: linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.44-mm6 contest results References: <1035855807.3dbde7bf1bda8@kolivas.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Oct 2002 06:46:23.0345 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5566E10:01C27F16] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: > > io_load: > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > 2.5.44 [3] 873.8 9 69 12 12.24 > 2.5.44-mm1 [3] 347.3 22 35 15 4.86 > 2.5.44-mm2 [3] 294.2 28 19 10 4.12 > 2.5.44-mm4 [3] 358.7 23 25 10 5.02 > 2.5.44-mm5 [4] 270.7 29 18 11 3.79 > 2.5.44-mm6 [3] 284.1 28 20 10 3.98 Jens, I think I prefer fifo_batch=16. We do need to expose these in /somewhere so people can fiddle with them. >... > mem_load: > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > 2.5.44 [3] 114.3 67 30 2 1.60 > 2.5.44-mm1 [3] 159.7 47 38 2 2.24 > 2.5.44-mm2 [3] 116.6 64 29 2 1.63 > 2.5.44-mm4 [3] 114.9 65 28 2 1.61 > 2.5.44-mm5 [4] 114.1 65 30 2 1.60 > 2.5.44-mm6 [3] 226.9 33 50 2 3.18 > > Mem load has dropped off again Well that's one interpretation. The other is "goody, that pesky kernel compile isn't slowing down my important memory-intensive whateveritis so much". It's a tradeoff. It appears that this change was caused by increasing the default value of /proc/sys/vm/page-cluster from 3 to 4. I am surprised. It was only of small benefit in other tests so I'll ditch that one. Thanks. (You're still testing with all IO against the same disk, yes? Please rememeber that things change quite significantly when the swap IO or the io_load is against a different device)