From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261479AbUBYRlC (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:41:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261480AbUBYRlC (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:41:02 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:4993 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261479AbUBYRk7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:40:59 -0500 Message-Id: <200402251740.i1PHetn27447@mail.osdl.org> To: Andrew Morton cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: reaim - 2.6.3-mm1 IO performance down. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:03:37 PST." <20040224170337.798f5766.akpm@osdl.org> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:40:55 -0800 From: Cliff White Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > cliff white wrote: > > > > For the same test on the same machine, results from 2.6.2-rc1-mm2 and 2.6.2 > -rc3-mm1 > > were within 1.0% of the linux-2.6.2 runs. So this is new. > > > > More data and tests if requested - are there some patch sets we should try > reverting? > > Thanks. You could try reverting adaptive-lazy-readahead.patch. If it is > not that I'd be suspecting CPU scheduler changes. Do you have uniprocessor > test results? I have them for 2.6.3-mm3, am re-running 2.6.3-mm1 right now. Gross results are within 1%, but looking at the detail, i do see badness, example: Kernel Users Run time 2.6.3 20 32.11 2.6.3-mm3 20 35.47 2.6.3 40 63.64 2.6.3-mm2 40 66.33 Again, this shows up best on the bottom graph on the page. Graphn of 2.6.3 vs 2.6.3-mm3 : http://developer.osdl.org/cliffw/reaim/compares/r_comp/2.6.3_vs_mm1_1cpu/index.html cliffw > > > - > 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/ >