linux-kernel - Performance regression in IO scheduler still there

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

Message-ID: <20091026172012.GC7233@duck.suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:20:12 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	jens.axboe@...cle.com
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Performance regression in IO scheduler still there

  Hi,

  I took time and remeasured tiobench results on recent kernel. A short
conclusion is that there is still a performance regression which I reported
few months ago. The machine is Intel 2 CPU with 2 GB RAM and plain SATA
drive. tiobench sequential write performance numbers with 16 threads:
2.6.29:              AVG       STDERR
37.80 38.54 39.48 -> 38.606667 0.687475

2.6.32-rc5:
37.36 36.41 36.61 -> 36.793333 0.408928 

So about 5% regression. The regression happened sometime between 2.6.29 and
2.6.30 and stays the same since then... With deadline scheduler, there's
no regression. Shouldn't we do something about it?

								Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/