[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081027113306.5b1d5898@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:33:06 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rjw@...k.pl,
s0mbre@...rvice.net.ru, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.
> The way to get the best possible dbench numbers in CPU-bound dbench
> runs, you have to throw away the scheduler completely, and do this
> instead:
>
> - first execute all requests of client 1
> - then execute all requests of client 2
> ....
> - execute all requests of client N
Rubbish. If you do that you'll not get enough I/O in parallel to schedule
the disk well (not that most of our I/O schedulers are doing the job
well, and the vm writeback threads then mess it up and the lack of Arjans
ioprio fixes then totally screw you) </rant>
> the moment the clients are allowed to overlap, the moment their requests
> are executed more fairly, the dbench numbers drop.
Fairness isn't everything. Dbench is a fairly good tool for studying some
real world workloads. If your fairness hurts throughput that much maybe
your scheduler algorithm is just plain *wrong* as it isn't adapting to
workload at all well.
Alan
--
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