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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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