Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753019AbZG1Lh5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:37:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752628AbZG1Lh5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:37:57 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:61987 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751348AbZG1Lh4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:37:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4A6EE2BF.9040803@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:36:31 +0800 From: Gui Jianfeng User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vivek Goyal CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, taka@valinux.co.jp, jmoyer@redhat.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, jbaron@redhat.com, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC] IO scheduler based IO controller V6 References: <1246564917-19603-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <4A6D0C9A.3080600@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090727125503.GA24449@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20090727125503.GA24449@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1242 Lines: 39 Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:10:34AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here are some fio test results for IO Controller V6 built and not built. >> Iozone test results are also attached. >> > > Hi Gui, > > Thanks a lot for some performance numbers. It seems to be a mixed chart. > Performance gains at some places and loss at others. I am curious about > that -7.0% for normal writes. Not sure what can contribute to that. > > What was the value of "fairness" parameter when you ran those tests? Can you > please set fairness = 0 and re-run the tests (if you have already not done so). > > By default fairness is set to 1 in V6. With fairness = 0, we should be very > close to existing CFQ behavior. If not, then we need to dive deeper and > see why variations are happening. Hi Vivek, I tested with default fairness value, i'll re-test it when fairness is set to 0. > > Is it also possible to run the same tests with V7. Sure. -- Regards Gui Jianfeng -- 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/