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, 4 Mar 2003 00:16:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:16:27 -0500 Received: from static-ctb-203-29-86-202.webone.com.au ([203.29.86.202]:6672 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:16:24 -0500 Message-ID: <3E64390F.7090309@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:26:39 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021226 Debian/1.2.1-9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.63-mm2 + i/o schedulers with contest References: <200303041354.03428.kernel@kolivas.org> <3E642932.7070205@cyberone.com.au> <200303041615.17617.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200303041615.17617.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: >On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 03:18 pm, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>small randomish reads vs large writes _is_ where AS really can >>perform better than non a non AS scheduler. Unfortunately gcc >>doesn't have the _best_ IO pattern for AS ;) >> > >Yes I recall this discussion against a gcc based benchmark. However it is >interesting that it still performed by far the best. > Yes, AS obviously does help gcc against io_load. My "unfortunately" comment was just a pun, of course we don't want to just test where AS does well. >>>CFQ and DL scheduler were faster compiling the kernel under read_load, >>>list_load and dbench_load. >>> >>>Mem_load result of AS being slower was just plain weird with the result >>>rising from 100 to 150 during testing. >>> >>I would like to see if AS helps much with a swap/memory >>thrashing load. >> > >That's what mem_load is. It repeatedly tries to access 110% of available ram. >quote from original post: >mem_load: >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio >2.5.63 3 104 75.0 57.7 1.9 1.32 >2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 101 76.2 52.3 2.0 1.28 >2.5.63-mm2 3 132 59.1 90.3 2.3 1.65 >2.5.63-mm2dl 3 100 79.0 52.0 2.0 1.27 > >Note that mm2 with AS performed equivalent to the other schedulers but on >later runs took longer. (99, 148,150) This is usually suspicious of a memory >leak that contest is unusually sensitive at picking up, but there wasn't >anything suspicious about the meminfo after these runs, and none of the other >loads changed over time. io_load usually shows drastic prolongation when >memory is leaking. > Ah ok. And this change didn't affect other schedulers on mm2? Is it reproducable with AS? I'll have to keep this in mind and take another look at it after a few othe bugs are fixed.