Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:18:58 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [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/
|  |