From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264820AbUETBbk (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 21:31:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264822AbUETBbk (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 21:31:40 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.105]:46260 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264820AbUETBbj (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 21:31:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Random file I/O regressions in 2.6 [patch+results] From: Ram Pai To: Alexey Kopytov Cc: Andrew Morton , nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, peter@mysql.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@suse.de In-Reply-To: <200405200506.03006.alexeyk@mysql.com> References: <200405022357.59415.alexeyk@mysql.com> <1084480888.22208.26.camel@dyn319386.beaverton.ibm.com> <1084815010.13559.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200405200506.03006.alexeyk@mysql.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1085016663.2941.10.camel@dyn319009bld.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 19 May 2004 18:31:14 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 18:06, Alexey Kopytov wrote: > Ram Pai wrote: > > >Attached the cleaned up patch and the performance results of the patch. > > > >Overall Observation: > > 1.Small improvement with iozone with the patch, and overall > > much better performance than 2.4 > > 2.Small/neglegible improvement with DSS workload. > > 3.Negligible impact with sysbench, but results worser than > > 2.4 kernels > > Ram, can you clarify the status of this patch please? > > I ran the same sysbench test on my hardware with patched 2.6.6 and got > 122.2348s execution time, i.e. almost the same results as in the original > tests. Is this patch an intermediate step to improve the sysbench workload on > 2.6, or it just addresses another problem? this patch by itself does not address your problem. Your problem is better addressed by Andrew's 'readahead-private' patch. However; this patch applied on top of Andrew's 'readahead-private' patch may get you some extra performance. Can you confirm this please? RP