Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.{18,19{-ck9},20rc1{-aa1}} with contest

From: Andrea Arcangeli (
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 11:20:59 EST

On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 08:58:43PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> to do IO work. Unfortunately it is now busy starving the scheduler in the
> >> mean time, much like the 2.5 kernels did before the deadline scheduler was
> >> put in.
> Ok I fully retract the statement. I should not pass judgement on what part of
> the kernel has changed the benchmark results, I'll just describe what the

actually Wil pointed out to me privately you meant I/O scheduler, you
just never mentioned the name "I/O" so I mistaken if for the process
scheduler, sorry (I should have understood from the deadline adjective).
It makes sense what you said once parsed as I/O scheduler of course.

Next week I will check the changes in your tree and I'll try to
reproduce the dbench numbers on my 4-way with very high I/O and disk
bandwith and I'll let you know the numbers I get here. It maybe simply
the different elevator default values and fixes in 2.4.20rc, but I
recall that you still win compared to -r0 somewhere (according to your
numbers). It's pointless from my part to discuss this further now until
I've the whole picture of the changes you did, the whole picture on the
contest source code, and after I can reproduce every single result you
posted here. Hope to be able to comment further ASAP.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 22:00:20 EST