lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.68-mm3 with contest
Ed Tomlinson wrote:

>Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>
>>Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
>>
>>>All the io-write based loads were affected.
>>>
>>Yup. Mainly because the large queue increases truncate latencies.
>>
>
>Are there loads that do benefit from large queues? If so, does it make
>sense to use truncate impact (something like a decaying average of truncate
>time per interval) to control the size of the queues on the fly?
>
I'll post some more benchmarks, but I have found that loads with
lots of IO streams. Those with more than about 1/2 as many IO streams
as request slots start to show improvements. I don't think changing
the size of the queues on the fly would be any good. They can be
made runtime tunable quite easily now, which is a good bad solution.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.032 / U:2.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site