lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Influence of optimization level, preemption and scheduler on boot time
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:20:59 +0200
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:25:53 +1200
> Johannes Buchner <buchner.johannes@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > Hi all.
> >
> > I measured the kernel (and system) boot times while varying the
> > parameters:
> > - Optimization level: -Os, -O2 and also -O3
> > - Preemptive model
> > - Scheduler: CFQ, Anticipatory, Deadline, Noop
> >
> > My conclusion was that the optimization level and the preemptive
> > model had no significant influence on speed. CFQ let my system boot
> > several seconds faster than the other schedulers.
> >
> > Graphs can be found at:
> > http://johannes.jakeapp.com/blog/?p=913
> >
> > This conclusion may not be true for all situations, but I found it
> > interesting that the optimization level is so irrelevant.
> >
>
> it's interesting to see that the IO scheduler mattered..
> I would think that (s)readahead makes the IO scheduler irrelevant for
> boot time...

I did not use (s)readahead though in this measurements. Trying
readahead-list with CFQ did not bring me any improvement. Maybe, for
the other schedulers, it brings the speed on par with CFQ.


--
Emails können geändert, gefälscht und eingesehen werden. Signiere oder
verschüssele deine Mails mit GPG.
http://web.student.tuwien.ac.at/~e0625457/pgp.html
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-21 13:45    [W:0.033 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site