From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:32:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:32:45 -0500 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:6347 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:32:45 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:43:21 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Jens Axboe Cc: kernel@kolivas.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, piggin@cyberone.com.au Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.61-mm1 +/- as or cfq with contest Message-Id: <20030216024321.7b5a570d.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030216095956.GA6612@suse.de> References: <200302162046.42103.kernel@kolivas.org> <20030216095149.GA6521@suse.de> <200302162053.36119.kernel@kolivas.org> <20030216095956.GA6612@suse.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2003 10:42:35.0763 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E324C30:01C2D5A8] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:51 pm, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 16 2003, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > Here are contest (http://contest.kolivas.org) results with osdl > > > > (http://www.osdl.org) hardware for 2.5.61-mm1 with either the as i/o > > > > scheduler or the cfq scheduler. > > > > > > > > io_load: > > > > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio > > > > 2.5.60-mm1 3 112 67.0 15.7 7.1 1.42 > > > > 2.5.61 2 143 52.4 32.9 13.3 1.81 > > > > 2.5.61-mm1 2 634 12.5 257.3 24.6 7.83 > > > > 2.5.61-mm1cfq 3 397 19.6 123.3 18.1 5.03 > > > > > > These loo fishy, could be some other interaction. I'm consistently > > > beating 2.5.60-mm1/2.5.61 on io_load here, but that is 2.5.61 base and > > > not 2.5.61-mm1 base. Could be something odd happening there. > > > > I dont think they're fishy - taken in the mm1 context -. I have tested cfq3a > > without mm1 and it does beat the baseline. See a previous email I posted with > > it. > > I didn't mean that you have done something fishy, but that there's a > fishy interaction between -mm + CFQ :) > It is the CPU scheduler patch. Con has eariler shown that this patch shoots io_load in the head. 2.5.60-mm1 did not have that patch.