| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 23:56:18 +0200 From: Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com> To: Matthew <jackdachef@...il.com> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jens.axboe@...cle.com Subject: Re: performance "regression" in cfq compared to anticipatory, deadline and noop > From: Matthew <jackdachef@...il.com> > Date: Sat, May 10, 2008 10:39:50PM +0200 > > > 2) Does using a bigger value of slice_idle increase the throughput? > > > > Hi, > > 2) a bigger value even made it worse, setting it to "0" however > seemingly "fixed" it, I however don't know how the overall > effect/impact is, this will need some more real-world testing ;) > Well, it's not a fix... the overall effect is that you should end up with more seeks (and so reduced throughput) on loads consisting of more than one process, and at least one of those processes is a synchronous sequential reader. > one side-node / question: > > will this cause more wakeups on the cpu and/or decrease battery > runtime on, e.g. laptops ? > I don't know the overall effect on battery life, btw with no idling you have one less timer active in the system (that however, depending on the load, does not fire frequently) and more continuous disk activity. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists