Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 02 May 2003 04:34:11 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |