linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <x493a4lot31.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
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/