[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4e5e476b0912110915u209b8923m359d9147cc229fea@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:15:20 +0100
From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: reduce write depth only if sync was delayed
Hi Jeff,
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> writes:
>
>> The numbers look good. Now, there is no penalty in having low_latency
>> set for sequential writes, and just a small penalty for random ones.
>> The fact that random reads are faster with low_latency set is interesting.
>> Is the test is running with your patched tiobench (so that the number
>> of random operations is comparable with sequential ones)?
>
> No, I forgot all about that. The number of random operations defaults
> to 4000, which is pretty low. I'll re-run the tests with a number
> comparable to the sequential runs. Sorry about that.
>
N.P.
if you have time, can you also re-run the test changing:
iosched/fifo_expire_async to 8 ?
I hope that reducing the expire_async, will make cfq quicker at switching
between the different threads, allowing more parallelism for seq
writers on your hw.
If this is the case, I think I can try to estimate the
fifo_expire_async in the autotuning patch.
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
Thanks
Corrado
--
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