[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49pr8avzfl.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:26:54 -0400
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:
> 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?
Background:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/28/415
Thanks for bringing this up again. I'll try to make some time to look
into it if others don't beat me to it.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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