lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.63-mm2 + i/o schedulers with contest
Con Kolivas wrote:

>Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) benchmarks using the osdl
>hardware (http://www.osdl.org) for 2.5.63-mm2 and various i/o schedulers:
>
Thanks :)

>It seems the AS scheduler reliably takes slightly longer to compile the kernel
>in no load conditions, but only about 1% cpu.
>
It is likely that AS will wait too long for gcc to submit another
read and end up timing out anyway. Hopefully IO history tracking
will fix this up - for some loads the effect can be much worse.

>
>
>CFQ and DL faster to compile the kernel than AS while extracting or creating
>tars.
>
This is likely to be balancing differences from LCPU% it does
seem like AS is doing a bit more "load" work.

>
>
>AS significantly faster under writing large file to the same disk (io_load) or
>other disk (io_other) conditions. The CFQ and DL schedulers showed much more
>variability on io_load during testing but did not drop below 140 seconds.
>
small randomish reads vs large writes _is_ where AS really can
perform better than non a non AS scheduler. Unfortunately gcc
doesn't have the _best_ IO pattern for AS ;)

>
>
>CFQ and DL scheduler were faster compiling the kernel under read_load,
>list_load and dbench_load.
>
>Mem_load result of AS being slower was just plain weird with the result rising
>from 100 to 150 during testing.
>
I would like to see if AS helps much with a swap/memory
thrashing load.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:2.058 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site