linux-kernel - Re: performance "regression" in cfq compared to anticipatory, deadline and noop

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 11 May 2008 10:00:59 +1000
From:	Aaron Carroll <aaronc@....unsw.edu.au>
To:	Matthew <jackdachef@...il.com>
CC:	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
	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

Matthew wrote:
>> 2) Does using a bigger value of slice_idle increase the throughput?
> 
> [..]
>
> 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 ;)

As Fabio said, you may lose throughput if you have multiple processes
with at least one sync. seq. reader.  However, for other workloads, you
should see a large global throughput improvement.  This is because CFQ
tends to idle without too much regard to thinktime or seekiness, often
wasting a few ms.  The trade-off is that your slow sync. processes may
suffer a little.

 -- Aaron
--
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/