Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.{18,19{-ck9},20rc1{-aa1}} with contest
Jens Axboe (axboe@suse.de)
Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:20:18 +0100
On Fri, Nov 08 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > >Con Kolivas wrote:
> > >> io_load:
> > >> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > >> 2.4.18 [3] 474.1 15 36 10 6.64
> > >> 2.4.19 [3] 492.6 14 38 10 6.90
> > >> 2.4.19-ck9 [2] 140.6 49 5 5 1.97
> > >> 2.4.20-rc1 [2] 1142.2 6 90 10 16.00
> > >> 2.4.20-rc1aa1 [1] 1132.5 6 90 10 15.86
> > >
> > >2.4.20-pre3 included some elevator changes. I assume they are the
> > >cause of this. Those changes have propagated into Alan's and Andrea's
> > >kernels. Hence they have significantly impacted the responsiveness
> > >of all mainstream 2.4 kernels under heavy writes.
> > >
> > >(The -ck patch includes rmap14b which includes the read-latency2 thing)
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation. I should have said this was ck with compressed
> > caching; not rmap.
> >
>
> hrm. In that case I'll shut up with the speculating.
>
> You're showing a big shift in behaviour between 2.4.19 and 2.4.20-rc1.
> Maybe it doesn't translate to worsened interactivity. Needs more
> testing and anaysis.
The merging and seek accounting in 2.4.19 is completely off, it doesn't
make any sense. 2.4.20-rc1 should be sanely tweakable.
--
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/