Re: [BENCHMARK] I/O regression after 2.6.0-test5

[Andrew Morton]

Nick Piggin <piggin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> rwhron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> >There was about a 50% regression in jobs/minute in AIM7
> >database workload on quad P3 Xeon.  The CPU time has not
> >gone up, so the extra run time is coming from something
> >else.  (I/O or I/O scheduler?)
> >
> >tiobench sequential reads has a significant regression too.
> >
> >Regression appears unrelated to filesystem type.
> >
> >dbench was not affected.
> >
> >The AIM7 was run on ext2.
> >
> 
> Yeah I'd say its all due to the IO scheduler. There is a problem
> I'm thinking about how to fix - its the likely cause of this too.
> 

What change do you think it was due to?

It's rather strange that test6 is slow but test6-mm is not: generally the
IO scheduler regressions enter -mm first ;)

Testing versus deadline would be interesting.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/