Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.63-mm2 + i/o schedulers with contest | Date | Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:29:45 +1100 |
| |
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:26 pm, Nick Piggin wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > >On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 03:18 pm, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>small randomish reads vs large writes _is_ where AS really can > >>perform better than non a non AS scheduler. Unfortunately gcc > >>doesn't have the _best_ IO pattern for AS ;) > > > >Yes I recall this discussion against a gcc based benchmark. However it is > >interesting that it still performed by far the best. > > Yes, AS obviously does help gcc against io_load. My > "unfortunately" comment was just a pun, of course we > don't want to just test where AS does well. > > >>>CFQ and DL scheduler were faster compiling the kernel under read_load, > >>>list_load and dbench_load. > >>> > >>>Mem_load result of AS being slower was just plain weird with the result > >>>rising from 100 to 150 during testing. > >> > >>I would like to see if AS helps much with a swap/memory > >>thrashing load. > > > >That's what mem_load is. It repeatedly tries to access 110% of available > > ram. quote from original post: > >mem_load: > >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > >2.5.63 3 104 75.0 57.7 1.9 1.32 > >2.5.63-mm2cfq 3 101 76.2 52.3 2.0 1.28 > >2.5.63-mm2 3 132 59.1 90.3 2.3 1.65 > >2.5.63-mm2dl 3 100 79.0 52.0 2.0 1.27 > > > >Note that mm2 with AS performed equivalent to the other schedulers but on > >later runs took longer. (99, 148,150) This is usually suspicious of a > > memory leak that contest is unusually sensitive at picking up, but there > > wasn't anything suspicious about the meminfo after these runs, and none > > of the other loads changed over time. io_load usually shows drastic > > prolongation when memory is leaking. > > Ah ok. And this change didn't affect other schedulers on mm2? Is > it reproducable with AS? I'll have to keep this in mind and take > another look at it after a few othe bugs are fixed.
Not on the other schedulers, no. I'll throw some more benchmarks at it to see if it recurs. I didn't think much of it at the time.
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/
| |