Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:01:35 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: WimMark I report for 2.5.65-mm2 |
| |
Jens Axboe wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 20 2003, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote: >> >>>Besides, deadline is still the most solid choice. >>> >>Deadline will always be the best choice for OLTP workloads. Or CFQ - it >>should perform the same. >> >>All this workload does is seeks all over the disk doing teeny synchronous >>I/O's. It is the worst-case for AS. >> >>What we are trying to do at present is to make AS not _too_ bad for these >>workloads so that people with mixed workloads or who are not familiar with >>kernel arcanery don't accidentally end up with something which is >>significantly slower than it should be. >> >>It is an interesting test case. >> > >I understand that. A deadline run is still interesting if there are >regressions from -mm2 to -mm3, for example. If deadline shows the same >regression, it's likely not a newly introduced AS bug. > You are quite right of course, Jens. I did tell Joel not to worry about the other schedulers for a while just while I was trying to get AS even close to their performance. I thought it would take a bit longer to get there. It appears to be now, so yes, deadline runs will be nice.
- 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/
| |