[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Feedback on preemptible kernel patch xfs
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
rml at

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.054 / U:3.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site