Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Feedback on preemptible kernel patch xfs | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 21 Sep 2001 15:50:29 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 2001-09-21 at 08:29, Gerold Jury wrote: > On Thursday 20 September 2001 02:56, Robert Love wrote: > > I am surprised, you should see a difference, especially with the > > latencytest. Silly question, but you both applied the patch and enabled > > the config statement, right? > > > Really, i have checked twice. > The patch could, by the way, write a line to the syslog when enabled.
OK, I believe you :)
Yes, but I find all the `NET4.0 loaded!' as crap as it is. If CONFIG_PREEMPT is defined, rest assured the code is correct.
> All the filesystem operations happend on the xfs partitions. > I noticed more equally distributed read/write operations with smaller slices > during big copy jobs on xfs. > This effect may well come from the preemption patch. I used a spare partition > for the test, so the filesystem was in the same state with both kernels > during the tests. > Xfs usually delays the write operations and does them in bigger blocks. > The behavior of XFS has changed with the kernel versions towards this > direction anyway but is clearly different with the preemption patch. > > I will redo the latency tests with the standard Xfree86 nvidia driver. > It may give a different picture. > The graphics test and the /proc test have shown the highest latency's. > Both involve the xserver (proc for the xterm). > The other tests have been around 5-6 msec in both cases. > > And i will do the dbench test of course.
Very good. Please let me know.
-- Robert M. Love rml at ufl.edu rml at tech9.net
- 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/
|  |