Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:45:03 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest |
| |
On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:51 pm, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl > > > > > (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o > > > > > scheduler or the cfq scheduler. > > > > > > > > > > io_load: > > > > > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > > > > > 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42 > > > > > 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81 > > > > > 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83 > > > > > 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03 > > > > > > > > These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently > > > > beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and > > > > not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there. > > > > > > I dont think they're fishy - taken in the mm1 context -. I have tested cfq3a > > > without mm1 and it does beat the baseline. See a previous email I posted with > > > it. > > > > I didn't mean that you have done something fishy, but that there's a > > fishy interaction between -mm + CFQ :) > > > > It is the CPU scheduler patch. Con has eariler shown that this patch shoots > io_load in the head. 2.5.60-mm1 did not have that patch.
and process_load, and dbench_load :)
Thanks, makes sense.
-- 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/
| |