From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264601AbTDZDAJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:00:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264602AbTDZDAJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:00:09 -0400 Received: from static-ctb-210-9-247-179.webone.com.au ([210.9.247.179]:30472 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264601AbTDZDAI (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:00:08 -0400 Message-ID: <3EA9F8F2.3070303@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:11:46 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030327 Debian/1.3-4 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin CC: rwhron@earthlink.net, akpm@digeo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.68 and 2.5.68-mm2 References: <20030426015856.GA2286@rushmore> <3EA9ECFB.5050407@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3EA9ECFB.5050407@cyberone.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin wrote: > > > rwhron@earthlink.net wrote: > >>> The benchmark is hitting a pathologoical case. Yeah, it's a >>> problem, but >>> it's not as bad as tiobench indicates. >>> > Its interesting that deadline does so much better for this case > though. I wonder if any other differences in mm could cause it? > A run with deadline on mm would be nice to see. IIRC my tests > showed AS doing as well or better than deadline in smp tiobench. > The bad random read performance is a problem too, because the > fragmentation should only add to the randomness. > I'll have to investigate this further. > Are you using TCQ by any chance? If so, what do the results look like with TCQ off?