Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:02:45 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: stop balance_dirty_pages doing too much work
Message-ID: <20090626050245.GL31415@kernel.dk>
References: <1245839904.3210.85.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200906251646.22785.a1426z@gawab.com> <20090625144450.GT31415@kernel.dk> <200906252010.33535.a1426z@gawab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200906252010.33535.a1426z@gawab.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 787
Lines: 20

On Thu, Jun 25 2009, Al Boldi wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > The test case is random mmap writes to files that have been laid out
> > sequentially. So it's all seeks. The target drive is an SSD disk though,
> > so it doesn't matter a whole lot (it's a good SSD).
> 
> Oh, SSD.  What numbers do you get for normal disks?

I haven't run this particular test on rotating storage. The type of
drive should not matter a lot, I'm mostly interested in comparing
vanilla and the writeback patches on identical workloads and storage.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/