From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262375AbTJTBfn (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:35:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262377AbTJTBfm (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:35:42 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-210-9-246-209.webone.com.au ([210.9.246.209]:11781 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262375AbTJTBfl (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:35:41 -0400 Message-ID: <3F933BE7.5080700@cyberone.com.au> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:35:35 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rwhron@earthlink.net CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] I/O regression after 2.6.0-test5 References: <20031020003745.GA2794@rushmore> In-Reply-To: <20031020003745.GA2794@rushmore> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org rwhron@earthlink.net wrote: >There was about a 50% regression in jobs/minute in AIM7 >database workload on quad P3 Xeon. The CPU time has not >gone up, so the extra run time is coming from something >else. (I/O or I/O scheduler?) > >tiobench sequential reads has a significant regression too. > >Regression appears unrelated to filesystem type. > >dbench was not affected. > >The AIM7 was run on ext2. > Yeah I'd say its all due to the IO scheduler. There is a problem I'm thinking about how to fix - its the likely cause of this too.