Re: [BENCHMARK] I/O regression after 2.6.0-test5

[Nick Piggin]

Andrew Morton wrote:

> Nick Piggin <piggin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > rwhron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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.
>
> What change do you think it was due to?

I was thinking: [PATCH] fix AS crappy performance

(It still doesn't work properly)

> It's rather strange that test6 is slow but test6-mm is not: generally the
> IO scheduler regressions enter -mm first ;)

But if test6-mm isn't slow then maybe it is due to something else

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/