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

Date:	Fri, 16 May 2008 20:39:07 +0200
From:	Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>
To:	Matthew <jackdachef@...il.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: performance "regression" in cfq compared to anticipatory, deadline and noop

> From: Matthew <jackdachef@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 05:23:12PM +0200
>
...
> thanks for the 2 patches, please keep them coming :)
> 
> a short report (due to the time shortage):
> 
> I tested both patches this morning and got for both (still) around
> 52-58 MB/s (/dev/sdd & /dev/sde)
> 
> thanks & have a nice weekend :)

Maybe I've missed it but I cannot find the blktrace output for your
original test and for the test with the first patch posted by Jens
in this thread (the one completely removing the blk_start_queueing()
call), may I ask you if you can point me to them?

>From what I understood that patch didn't solve your issue, so the
following ones, that adopt a similar approach, are unlikely to do
any better.

Thank you in advance.
--
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/