[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201004201124.00326.trenn@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:24:00 +0200
From: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Éric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
davej@...hat.com, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] ondemand: Solve the big performance issue with ondemand during disk IO
On Monday 19 April 2010 15:43:25 Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:29:47 +0200
> Éric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem and fix are both verified with the "perf timechar" tool.
> > Hi,
> > I don't doubt that keeping the cpu full frequency during IO can
> > improve some specific workloads, however in your log message you
> > don't explain how much we are loosing.
>
> first of all, it's so bad that people will just turn the whole power
> management off... at which point fixing the really bad bug is actually
> quite a win
Not sure you fix a bug, I expect this was done on purpose.
The ondemand governor disadvantages processes with alternating short CPU
load peaks and idle sequences.
IO bound processes typically show up with such a behavior.
But I follow Eric and agree that if it costs that much, changing
above sounds sane.
Still, I could imagine some people might want to not raise freq on IO bound
process activity, therefore this should get another ondemand param, similar
to ignore_nice_load.
Thomas
--
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