Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:08:06 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.39 with contest 0.41 |
| |
On Sat, Sep 28 2002, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > io_load: > > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio > > > 2.4.19 216.05 33% 3.19 > > > 2.5.38 887.76 8% 13.11* > > > 2.5.38-mm3 105.17 70% 1.55* > > > 2.5.39 216.81 37% 3.20 > > > > -mm3 has fifo_batch=16. 2.5.39 has fifo_batch=32.
That's not the only difference, btw.
> > > mem_load: > > > Kernel Time CPU Ratio > > > 2.4.19 105.40 70% 1.56 > > > 2.5.38 107.89 73% 1.59 > > > 2.5.38-mm3 117.09 63% 1.73* > > > 2.5.39 103.72 72% 1.53 > > > > 2.5's swapout is still fairly synchronously sucky. So low-latency > > writeout could be advantageous there. This difference is probably > > also the fifo_batch thing. Or maybe statistical? > > > > > > I did some testing with your latest. 4xPIII, mem=512m, SCSI, > > tag depth = 0, 2.5.39-mm1 candidate: > > > > fifo_batch=32: > > > > noload 2:34.53 291% > > cpuload 2:36.20 286% > > memload 2:19.44 333% > > ioloadhalf 2:34.81 303% > > ioloadfull 3:15.47 238% > > > > (err. memload sped it up!) > > > > fifo_batch=16: > > > > noload 2:00.03 380% > > cpuload 2:27.62 304% > > memload 2:22.59 326% > > ioloadhalf 2:33.75 306% > > ioloadfull 2:59.18 259% > > > > - Something went horridly wrong in the first `noload' test. > > - fifo_batch=16 is better than 32. > > - you see a 4x hit from io_load. I see a 1.5x hit.
So far fifo_batch=16 looks pretty good. Doesn't quite make sense to me. Need to bench/test some more :-)
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |