Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:16:24 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: anticipatory scheduling questions |
| |
"Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org> wrote: > > ----- 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.
Me either. It's a bug.
Does basic 2.5.63 do the same thing? Do you have a feel for when it started happening?
> Could a "vmstat" or "iostat" dump be interesting?
2.4 versus 2.5 would be interesting, yes.
- 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/
| |