Re: anticipatory scheduling questions

Felipe Alfaro Solana (felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org)
Sat, 01 Mar 2003 00:12:20 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:14:18 -0800
To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions

> "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > I have done so: Evolution is a complex application with many interdependencies and is
> > not very prone to launch diagnostic messages to the console. Anyways, I haven't seen
> > any diagnostic message in the console. I still think there is something in the AS I/O scheduler
> > that is not working at full read throughput. Of course I'm no expert.
>
> It certainly does appear that way. But you observed the same runtime
> with the deadline scheduler. Or was that a typo?
>
> > > 2.4.20-2.54 -> 9s
> > > 2.5.63-mm1 w/Deadline -> 34s
> > > 2.5.63-mm1 w/AS -> 33s

It wasn't a typo... In fact, both deadline and AS give roughly the same timings (one second up or down). But I
still don't understand why 2.5 is performing so much worse than 2.4. Could a "vmstat" or "iostat" dump be
interesting? 
-- 
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr


Powered by Outblaze
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/