Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264061AbTE3X0L (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2003 19:26:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264062AbTE3X0L (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2003 19:26:11 -0400 Received: from c17870.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.248.224]:64460 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264061AbTE3X0J (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2003 19:26:09 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Neil Schemenauer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][CFT] new IO scheduler for 2.4.20 Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 09:40:41 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 Cc: Marc-Christian Petersen , Matt References: <20030530220923.GA404@glacier.arctrix.com> In-Reply-To: <20030530220923.GA404@glacier.arctrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200305310940.41780.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 31 May 2003 08:09, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > The major benefit of this patch is that read latency is much lower while > lots of writes are occuring. On my machine, running: > > while :; do dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1M count=1000 conv=notrunc; done > > makes 2.4.20 unusable. With this patch the "write bomb" causes no > particular problems. > > With this version of the patch I've improved the bulk read performance > of the elevator. The bonnie++ results are now: > > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > 2.4.20 1G 13001 97 34939 18 13034 7 12175 92 34112 14 > 2.4.20-nas 1G 12923 98 36471 17 13340 8 10809 83 35569 13 > > Note that the "rewrite" and "per-char read" stats are slightly bogus for > 2.4.20-nas. Reads get a boost in priority over writes. When the > "per-char read" test has started there is still some writing happening > from the rewrite test. I think the net effect is that the "rewrite" > number is too high and the "per-char read" number is too low. > > I would be very pleased if someone could run some tests on using bonnie, > contest, or their other favorite benchmarks and post the results. Nice to see 2.4 getting some attention. I'll try and get around to contesting it. How does this compare to akpm's read-latency2 patch that he posed some time ago? That seems to make a massive difference but was knocked back for style or approach. 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/