Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:09:18 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: rwhron@earthlink.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IO scheduler benchmarking
Message-Id: <20030225140918.197dea73.akpm@digeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030225125942.GA1657@rushmore>
References: <20030225125942.GA1657@rushmore>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1551
Lines: 43

rwhron@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >> Why does 2.5.62-mm2 have higher sequential
> >> write latency than 2.5.61-mm1?
> 
> > And there are various odd interactions in, at least, ext3.  You did not
> > specify which filesystem was used.
> 
> ext2
> 
> >>                     Thr  MB/sec   CPU%     avg lat      max latency
> >> 2.5.62-mm2-as         8   14.76   52.04%     6.14        4.5
> >> 2.5.62-mm2-dline      8    9.91   13.90%     9.41         .8
> >> 2.5.62-mm2            8    9.83   15.62%     7.38      408.9
> 
> > Fishiness.  2.5.62-mm2 _is_ 2.5.62-mm2-as.  Why the 100x difference?
> 
> Bad EXTRAVERSION naming on my part.  2.5.62-mm2 _was_ booted with 
> elevator=cfq.
> 
> ...
> > That 408 seconds looks suspect.
> 
> AFAICT, that's the one request in over 500,000 that took the longest.
> The numbers are fairly consistent.  How relevant they are is debatable.  

OK.  When I was testing CFQ I saw some odd behaviour, such as a 100%
cessation of reads for periods of up to ten seconds.

So there is some sort of bug in there, and until that is understood we should
not conclude anything at all about CFQ from this testing.

> 2.5.62-mm3 or 2.5.63-mm1?  (-mm3 is running now)

Well I'm showing about seven more AS patches since 2.5.63-mm1 already, so
this is a bit of a moving target.  Sorry.


-
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/