Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:50:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:50:01 -0400 Received: from c16598.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.243.217]:34533 "HELO pc.kolivas.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:50:00 -0400 Message-ID: <1033527322.3d9a601aa7795@kolivas.net> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:55:22 +1000 From: Con Kolivas To: Jens Axboe Cc: Mike Galbraith , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39-mm1 References: <3D9976D9.C06466B@digeo.com> <200209301941.41627.conman@kolivas.net> <20021001101520.GB20878@suse.de> <3D9976D9.C06466B@digeo.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20021001190123.00b3cdc8@pop.gmx.net> <20021001172200.GH5755@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20021001172200.GH5755@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3117 Lines: 71 Quoting Jens Axboe : > On Tue, Oct 01 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > At 10:19 PM 10/1/2002 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > >On Tuesday 01 Oct 2002 8:20 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > > >> Jens Axboe wrote: > > >> > On Mon, Sep 30 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: [snip] > > >> > > > > >> > > I think I'll set fifo_batch to 16 again... > > >> > > > >> > As not to compare oranges and apples, I'd very much like to see a > > >> > 2.5.39-mm1 vs 2.5.39-mm1 with fifo_batch=16. Con, would you do that? > > >> > Thanks! > > >> > > >> The presence of /proc/sys/vm/fifo_batch should make that pretty easy. > > > > > >Thanks. That made it a lot easier and faster, and made me curious enough > to > > >create a family or very interesting results. All these are with > 2.5.39-mm1 > > >with fifo_batch set to 1->16, average of three runs. The first result is [snip] > > >What's most interesting is the variation was small until the number was > <8; > > >then the variation between runs increased. Dare I say it there appears to > > > >be > > >a sweet spot in the results. > > > > What's more interesting (methinks) is the huge difference between 32 and > > 16. Have you played with values between 32 and 16? (/me wonders if > > there's a cliff or a gentle slope) > > As I wrote in response, the difference is that 16 == seek_cost. So > fifo_batch of 16 will allow 1 seek, fifo_batch of 32 will allow two. > This is the reason for the big drop at that point. I would expect 31 to > be pretty close to 16. Ok well I've got the answer to both questions. I've removed the other results from this email for clarity, and here is a more complete family (average of 2 or 3 runs): io_load: Kernel Time CPU% Ratio 2539mm1fb01 125.4 60 1.85 2539mm1fb02 112.7 65 1.66 2539mm1fb04 146.4 51 2.16 2539mm1fb08 109.1 68 1.61 2539mm1fb10 204.3 63 3.02 2539mm1fb12 210.3 60 3.10 2539mm1fb14 192.6 66 2.85 2539mm1fb16 131.2 57 1.94 2539mm1fb18 209.7 61 3.10 2539mm1fb20 221.8 57 3.27 2539mm1fb22 262.3 48 3.88 2539mm1fb24 264.0 48 3.90 2539mm1fb26 258.7 50 3.82 2539mm1fb28 307.4 42 4.54 2539mm1fb30 319.4 40 4.71 2539mm1fb31 294.4 44 4.34 2539mm1fb32 239.5 32 3.54 For my machine at least it appears that falling outside the powers of 2 is not good. Con - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/