lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Performance regression in IO scheduler still there
Date
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:

> On Wed 11-11-09 12:43:30, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:
>>
>> > Sadly, I don't see the improvement you can see :(. The numbers are the
>> > same regardless low_latency set to 0:
>> > 2.6.32-rc5 low_latency = 0:
>> > 37.39 36.43 36.51 -> 36.776667 0.434920
>> > But my testing environment is a plain SATA drive so that probably
>> > explains the difference...
>>
>> I just retested (10 runs for each kernel) on a SATA disk with no NCQ
>> support and I could not see a difference. I'll try to dig up a disk
>> that support NCQ. Is that what you're using for testing?
> I don't think I am. How do I find out?

Good question. ;-) I grep for NCQ in dmesg output and make sure it's
greater than 0/32. There may be a better way, though.

>> 2.6.29 2.6.32-rc6,low_latency=0
>> ----------------------------------
>> Average: 34.6648 34.4475
>> Pop.Std.Dev.: 0.55523 0.21981
> Hmm, strange. Miklos Szeredi tried tiobench on his machine and he also
> saw the regression. I'll try to think what could make the difference.

OK, I'll try again.

Cheers,
Jeff


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-12 21:47    [W:0.330 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site