Re: stochastic fair queueing in the elevator [Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.20-ck3 / aa / rmap with contest]

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 01:07:25PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> >
> >Large directories tend to be spread all around the disk anyway.  And I've
> >never explicitly tested for any problems which the loss of readahead might
> >have caused ext2.  Nor have I tested inode table readahead.  Guess I 
> >should.
> >
> >
> >-
> >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> >the body of a message to [e-mail]
> >More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> readahead seems to be less effective for non-sequential objects.  Or at 

yes, this is why I said readahead matters mostly to generate the big dma
commands, so if the object is sequential it will be served by the
lowlevel with a single dma using SG. this is also why when I moved the
high dma limit of scsi to 512k (from 128k IIRC) I got such a relevant
throughput improvement. Also watch the read speed in my tree compared to
2.4 and 2.5 in bigbox.html from Randy (bonnie shows it well).

> least, you don't get the order of magnitude benefit from doing only one 
> seek, you only get the better elevator scheduling from having more 
> things in the elevator, which isn't such a big gain.

Agreed.

Andrea