[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:43:30 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: jens.axboe@...cle.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: Performance regression in IO scheduler still there
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
> Sadly, I don't see the improvement you can see :(. The numbers are the
> same regardless low_latency set to 0:
> 2.6.32-rc5 low_latency = 0:
> 37.39 36.43 36.51 -> 36.776667 0.434920
> But my testing environment is a plain SATA drive so that probably
> explains the difference...
I just retested (10 runs for each kernel) on a SATA disk with no NCQ
support and I could not see a difference. I'll try to dig up a disk
that support NCQ. Is that what you're using for testing?
Cheers,
Jeff
2.6.29 2.6.32-rc6,low_latency=0
----------------------------------
Average: 34.6648 34.4475
Pop.Std.Dev.: 0.55523 0.21981
--
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