lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 40% IDE performance regression going from FC3 to FC5 with same kernel
On 4/8/06, Alessandro Suardi <alessandro.suardi@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll be filing a FC5 performance bug for this but would like an opinion
> from the IDE kernel people just in case this has already been seen...
>
> I just upgraded my home K7-800, 512MB RAM box from FC3 to FC5
> and noticed a disk performance slowdown while copying files around.
>
> System has two 160GB disks, a Samsung SP1604N 2MB cache and
> a Maxtor 6Y160P0 8MB cache; both disks appear to be almost 2x
> slower both on hdparm -t tests (17-19MB/s against 33/35 MB/s) and
> on dd tests, like this:
>
> FC3
> [root@donkey tmp]# time dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null skip=200 bs=1024k count=200
> 200+0 records in
> 200+0 records out
>
> real 0m4.623s
> user 0m0.004s
> sys 0m1.308s
>
> FC5
> [root@donkey tmp]# time dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/null skip=200 bs=1024k count=200
> 200+0 records in
> 200+0 records out
> 209715200 bytes (210 MB) copied, 9.67808 seconds, 21.7 MB/s
>
> real 0m9.683s
> user 0m0.008s
> sys 0m1.400s
>
>
> The initial tests were my last FC3 self-compiled kernel (2.6.16-rc5-git8)
> vs FC5's 2.6.16-1.2080_FC5 kernel; so just to be sure, I copied over
> from my FC3 partition the 2.6.16-rc5-git8 kernel and its config file,
> and rebuilt it under FC5, with just a few differences for the new USB
> 2.0 disk I added to a PCI controller I just put in, namely
>
> [root@donkey linux-2.6.16-rc5-git8]# diff .config
> /fc3/usr/src/linux-2.6.16-rc5-git8/.config
> 4c4
> < # Fri Apr 7 03:58:23 2006
> ---
> > # Mon Mar 6 22:49:32 2006
> 1110,1112c1110
> < CONFIG_USB_EHCI_HCD=m
> < CONFIG_USB_EHCI_SPLIT_ISO=y
> < CONFIG_USB_EHCI_ROOT_HUB_TT=y
> ---
> > # CONFIG_USB_EHCI_HCD is not set
> 1115c1113
> < CONFIG_USB_UHCI_HCD=m
> ---
> > CONFIG_USB_UHCI_HCD=y
> 1218d1215
> < # CONFIG_USB_SISUSBVGA is not set
>
> The result is unexpected - performance delta is still there. Concatenating
> output from hdparm -i /dev/hda and hdparm /dev/hda for the same kernel
> under FC3 and FC5, the only difference is
>
> [root@donkey ~]# diff /tmp/hdparm.out.2616rc2git8-fc5
> /tmp/hdparm.out.2616rc2git8
> 14c14
> < Drive conforms to: (null): ATA/ATAPI-1 ATA/ATAPI-2 ATA/ATAPI-3
> ATA/ATAPI-4 ATA/ATAPI-5 ATA/ATAPI-6 ATA/ATAPI-7
> ---
> > Drive conforms to: (null):
> 27c27
> < geometry = 19457/255/63, sectors = 312581808, start = 0
> ---
> > geometry = 19457/255/63, sectors = 160041885696, start = 0
>
> I'll try now and rebuild a 2.6.16-rc5-git8 kernel under FC5 with the
> FC3 GCC and see whether that is responsible for the performance
> drop... of course if anyone has any idea about what's going on, I
> will be happy to try out stuff. Attaching hdparm output from the FC5
> 2.6.16-rc5-git8 just to show that there is DMA etc. all configured fine.

Just for the record - no, even rebuilding same kernel with same GCC
(3.4.4) under FC5, disk performance is much slower than FC3 -
according to hdparm _and_ dd tests.

--alessandro

"Dreamer ? Each one of us is a dreamer. We just push it down deep because
we are repeatedly told that we are not allowed to dream in real life"
(Reinhold Ziegler)
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-08 17:41    [W:0.108 / U:1.412 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site