> On Sunday 01 December 2002 22:25, you wrote:
> Hi Rik,
> > That was my gut feeling as well, but I guess it's a good thing
> > to quantify how much of a difference it makes. I wonder if we
> > could convince Con to test a kernel both with and without this
> > patch and look at the difference.
> yep, would be a good idea. Con: *wake up ;)*
Sorry sleep and work intervene ;)
I have already tested it in -ck and was planning to put it into 2.4.20-ck1 when
I finished it. I'll test it in vanilla to show how it works. It made a
thunderous difference to io load.
> > > So, here my patch proposal. Ontop of 2.4.20-rmap15a.
> > Looks good, now lets test it. If the patch is as needed as you
> > say we should push it to marcelo ;)
> yep, Andrew should do it. Anyway, all those patches do _not_ get rid of those
> I/O pauses/stops since 2.4.19-pre6. Andrea did a good approach with his
> lowlatency elevator, even if it drops throughput (needs more testing to
> become equivalent to throughput w/o it) and also Con and me did a Mini
> Lowlatency Elevator + Config option, so you can decide weather you are
> building for serverusage where interactive "desktop performance" is not
> needed ;) or not.
> I wish I'll have the time to eleminate the broken code which went into 2.4.19
> that causes those I/O stops.
> *Repetition: those stopps do not occur with 2.4.18* ;)
> ciao, Marc
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/