> Definitely, because prepare to be a bit disappointed. Here are scores
> that include 2.4.21 as well:
> io_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.4.21 3 543 49.7 100.4 19.0 4.08
> 2.4.22-pre5 3 637 42.5 120.2 18.5 4.75
> 2.4.22-pre5-axboe 3 540 50.0 103.0 18.1 4.06
Huh, this is completely different than io_load on my box (2P scsi, ext3,
data=writeback)
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.4.21 3 520 52.5 27.8 15.2 3.80
2.4.22-pre5 3 394 69.0 21.5 15.4 2.90
2.4.22-sync 3 321 84.7 16.2 15.8 2.36
Where 2.4.22-sync was the variant I posted yesterday. I don't really
see how 2.4.21 can get numbers as good as 2.4.22-pre5 on the io_load
test, the read starvation with a big streaming io is horrible.
The data=writeback is changing the workload significantly, I used it
because I didn't want the data=ordered code to flush all dirty buffers
every 5 seconds. I would expect ext3 data=ordered to be pretty
starvation prone in 2.4.21 as well though.
BTW, the contest run times vary pretty wildy. My 3 compiles with
io_load running on 2.4.21 were 603s, 443s and 515s. This doesn't make
the average of the 3 numbers invalid, but we need a more stable metric.
-chris
-
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/