Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 May 2003 15:40:49 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ... |
| |
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:18:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > However the last numbers from Randy showed my tree going faster than 2.5 > > > with bonnie and tiotest so I think we don't need to worry and I would > > > probably not fix it in a different way in 2.4 even if it would mean a 1% > > > degradation. > > > > That could be because -aa quadruples the size of the VM readahead window. > > > > Changes such as that should be removed when assessing the performance > > impact of this particular patch. > > I understand that was a generic benchmark against 2.5, not meant to > evaluate the effect of the fixed readahead (see the name of the patch > "readahead-got-broken-somehwere"). I don't see any good reason why > should Randy cripple down my tree before benchmarking against 2.5? if > something it's ok to apply some of my patches to 2.5, that's great, the > other way around not IMHO. >
No.
What I am saying is that evaluation of the effect of an IO scheduler change cannot be performed when there is a 4:1 change in the readhead window present in the same tree.
ie: we cannot conclude anything about the effect of the IO scheduler change from Randy's numbers. Too many variables.
- 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/
| |