Tech Insider					   Technology and Trends


			   USENET Archives


Electronic mail:			      WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com		         http://tech-insider.org/

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!
sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.kiev.sovam.com!Svitonline.COM!news2.dg.net.ua!carrier.kiev.ua!not-for-mail
From: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org>
Newsgroups: lucky.linux.kernel
Subject: anticipatory scheduling questions
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:54:01 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: unknown
Lines: 46
Sender: n...@horse.lucky.net
Approved: newsmas...@lucky.net
Message-ID: <20030227222440.14610.qmail@linuxmail.org.lucky.linux.kernel>
NNTP-Posting-Host: horse.carrier.kiev.ua
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: horse.lucky.net 1046386441 34943 193.193.193.118 (27 Feb 2003 22:54:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@horse.lucky.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:54:01 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404)
X-Originating-Ip: 213.4.13.153
X-Originating-Server: ws5-2.us4.outblaze.com
X-Mailing-List: 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello, 
 
I have just installed 2.5.63-mm1 on my system and have been performing a very simple benchmarks. Here are 
my first results when compared against a RedHat 2.4.20-2.54 kernel: 
 
(All times expressed as total times) 
 
1. time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/p bs=1024k count=256 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m12.737s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m17.704s 
 
2. time cp /tmp/p /tmp/q 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m41.108s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m51.939s 
 
3. time cmp /tmp/p /tmp/q 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 1m7.349s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m58.966s 
 
4. time cmp /dev/zero /tmp/q 
2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m17.965s 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m14.038s 
 
The question is, why, apparently, is anticipatory scheduling perfomring worse than 2.4.20? Indeed, this can be 
tested interactively with an application like Evolution: I have configured Evolution to use 2 dictionaries (English 
and Spanish) for spell checking in e-mail messages. When running 2.4.20, if I choose to reply to a large 
message, it only takes a few seconds to read both dictionaries from disk and perform the spell checking. 
However, on 2.5.63-mm1 the same process takes considerably longer. Any reason for this? 
 
Thanks! 
 
Best regards, 
 
   Felipe Alfaro Solana 
 
-- 
______________________________________________
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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!
sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!38.144.126.75.MISMATCH!
feed1.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.kiev.sovam.com!Svitonline.COM!carrier.kiev.ua!
not-for-mail
From: Andrew Morton <a...@digeo.com>
Newsgroups: lucky.linux.kernel
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:37:18 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: unknown
Lines: 68
Sender: n...@horse.lucky.net
Approved: newsmas...@lucky.net
Message-ID: <20030227152604.334c292a.akpm@digeo.com.lucky.linux.kernel>
References: <20030227222440.14610.qmail@linuxmail.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: horse.carrier.kiev.ua
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: horse.lucky.net 1046389038 65138 193.193.193.118 (27 Feb 2003 23:37:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@horse.lucky.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:37:18 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <20030227222440.14610.qmail@linuxmail.org>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2003 23:29:27.0815 (UTC) FILETIME=[120F8170:01C2DEB8]
X-Mailing-List: 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Comment-To: Felipe Alfaro Solana

"Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> Hello, 
>  
> I have just installed 2.5.63-mm1 on my system and have been performing a very simple benchmarks. Here are 
> my first results when compared against a RedHat 2.4.20-2.54 kernel: 
>  
> (All times expressed as total times) 
>  
> 1. time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/p bs=1024k count=256 
> 2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m12.737s 
> 2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m17.704s 

It's hard to compare 2.4 and 2.5 on this one.  2.5 will start writing to disk
much earlier, and that additional I/O can sometimes get in the way of other
disk operations.  The end result is that the test exits leaving more (or
less) dirty data in memory and the time for writing that out is not
accounted.

You need to either run a much longer test, or include a `sync' in the
timings.

But in this case (assuming you're using ext3), the difference is probably
explained by a timing fluke - the test on 2.4 kernel happened to cover three
ext3 commit intervals while the 2.5 test squeezed itself into two.

Hard to say - there are a lot of variables here.

> 2. time cp /tmp/p /tmp/q 
> 2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m41.108s 
> 2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m51.939s 

Could be ext3 effects as well.  Also maybe some differences in page aging
implementations.

> 3. time cmp /tmp/p /tmp/q 
> 2.5.63-mm1 -> 1m7.349s 
> 2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m58.966s 

cmp needs to use a larger buffer ;)

> 4. time cmp /dev/zero /tmp/q 
> 2.5.63-mm1 -> 0m17.965s 
> 2.4.20-2.54 -> 0m14.038s 

Again, depends on how much of /tmp/q was left in pagecache.

> The question is, why, apparently, is anticipatory scheduling perfomring
> worse than 2.4.20?

It doesn't seem to be from the above numbers?

> Indeed, this can be tested interactively with an application like Evolution:
> I have configured Evolution to use 2 dictionaries (English and Spanish) for
> spell checking in e-mail messages. When running 2.4.20, if I choose to reply
> to a large message, it only takes a few seconds to read both dictionaries
> from disk and perform the spell checking. 
> However, on 2.5.63-mm1 the same process takes considerably longer. Any
> reason for this? 

Could you boot with elevator-deadline and retest?

How large are the dictionary files?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!
sn-xit-08!supernews.com!38.144.126.75.MISMATCH!feed1.newsreader.com!
newsreader.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.kiev.sovam.com!Svitonline.COM!carrier.kiev.ua!not-for-mail
From: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org>
Newsgroups: lucky.linux.kernel
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:49:35 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: unknown
Lines: 42
Sender: n...@horse.lucky.net
Approved: newsmas...@lucky.net
Message-ID: <20030228121806.16285.qmail@linuxmail.org.lucky.linux.kernel>
NNTP-Posting-Host: horse.carrier.kiev.ua
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: horse.lucky.net 1046443775 72227 193.193.193.118 (28 Feb 2003 14:49:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@horse.lucky.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:49:35 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404)
X-Originating-Ip: 213.4.13.153
X-Originating-Server: ws5-2.us4.outblaze.com
X-Mailing-List: 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Verify-Sender: verified
X-Comment-To: a...@digeo.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Andrew Morton <a...@digeo.com> 
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:26:04 -0800 
To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> 
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions 
 
> "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> wrote: 
> > Indeed, this can be tested interactively with an application like Evolution: 
> > I have configured Evolution to use 2 dictionaries (English and Spanish) for 
> > spell checking in e-mail messages. When running 2.4.20, if I choose to reply 
> > to a large message, it only takes a few seconds to read both dictionaries 
> > from disk and perform the spell checking.  
> > However, on 2.5.63-mm1 the same process takes considerably longer. Any 
> > reason for this?  
>  
> Could you boot with elevator-deadline and retest? 
 
I have done benchmark tests with Evolution under the following conditions: (times measured since the reply 
button is clicked until the message is opened) 
 
2.4.20-2.54 -> 9s 
2.5.63-mm1 w/Deadline -> 34s 
2.5.63-mm1 w/AS -> 33s 
 
The 2.4.20-2.54 is *not* a stock kernel, but Red Hat's own patched kernel (I think they include most of Alan Cox 
patches). Times are measured manually (don't know how to "time" the time elapsed since I click a button and 
the reply window is opened). Also, the filesystem is "ext2" running on a laptop (not a really fast hard disk). 
 
> How large are the dictionary files? 
 
Well, the aspell dictionary files are roughly 16MB for the Spanish dictionary and 4MB for the English one. 
-- 
______________________________________________
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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!
newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!
nsc.no!nextra.com!Norway.EU.net!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!
internet-mailinglist
Newsgroups: fa.linux.kernel
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+fa.linux.kernel=40ifi.uio...@vger.kernel.org>
Original-Date: 	Fri, 28 Feb 2003 04:44:07 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <a...@digeo.com>
To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org>
Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions
Original-Message-Id: <20030228044407.7836e46e.akpm@digeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030228121806.16285.qmail@linuxmail.org>
Original-References: <20030228121806.16285.qm...@linuxmail.org>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2003 12:44:07.0463 (UTC) FILETIME=[15586B70:01C2DF27]
Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Organization: Internet mailing list
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:45:15 GMT
Message-ID: <fa.h35ho8b.i5mer5@ifi.uio.no>
References: <fa.g7od6cl.fgcpor@ifi.uio.no>
Lines: 33

"Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> I have done benchmark tests with Evolution under the following conditions:
> (times measured since the reply button is clicked until the message is
> opened) 
>  
> 2.4.20-2.54 -> 9s 
> 2.5.63-mm1 w/Deadline -> 34s 
> 2.5.63-mm1 w/AS -> 33s 

Well something has gone quite wrong there.   It sounds as if something in
the 2.5 kernel has broken evolution.

Does this happen every time you reply to a message or just the first time?

And if you reply to a message, then quit evolution, then restart evolution
then reply to another message, does the same delay happen?

The above tests will eliminate the IO system at least.

If the delay is still there when all the needed datais in pagecache then
please run `vmstat 1' during the operation and send the part of the trace
from the period when the delay happens.

I'd suggest that you launch evolution from the command line in an xterm so
you can watch for any diagnostic messages.

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

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!
newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!
newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!nsc.no!nextra.com!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!
internet-mailinglist
Newsgroups: fa.linux.kernel
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+fa.linux.kernel=40ifi.uio...@vger.kernel.org>
Original-Message-ID: <20030228143811.9488.qmail@linuxmail.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404)
From: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org>
To: a...@digeo.com
Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Original-Date: 	Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:38:11 +0100
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions
X-Originating-Ip: 213.4.13.153
X-Originating-Server: ws5-2.us4.outblaze.com
Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Organization: Internet mailing list
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:39:38 GMT
Message-ID: <fa.i19v2ne.27q2p0@ifi.uio.no>
Lines: 65

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Andrew Morton <a...@digeo.com> 
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 04:44:07 -0800 
To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> 
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions 
 
> "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> wrote: 
> > 
> > I have done benchmark tests with Evolution under the following conditions: 
> > (times measured since the reply button is clicked until the message is 
> > opened)  
> >   
> > 2.4.20-2.54 -> 9s  
> > 2.5.63-mm1 w/Deadline -> 34s  
> > 2.5.63-mm1 w/AS -> 33s  
>  
> Well something has gone quite wrong there.   It sounds as if something in 
> the 2.5 kernel has broken evolution. 
>  
> Does this happen every time you reply to a message or just the first time? 
 
Only the first time. 
 
> And if you reply to a message, then quit evolution, then restart evolution 
> then reply to another message, does the same delay happen? 
>  
> The above tests will eliminate the IO system at least. 
 
OK, it seems to me there's an IO delay here: The first time I reply to a message, 
there is a continuous, steady and light disk load since I press the Reply button 
until the message appears. There are no pauses or delays. 
 
If I close the message window and then click Reply again, the window opens up 
almost immediately. Also, if I exit Evolution completely (shut it down and run "killev" 
to kill wombat and friends), and then open it up again, the Reply message procedure 
is also immediate. 
 
> If the delay is still there when all the needed datais in pagecache then 
> please run `vmstat 1' during the operation and send the part of the trace 
> from the period when the delay happens. 
 
Maybe I did not express myself correctly in my previous message: there are no such 
delays. Since the moment I click Reply for the very first time until the window opens up, 
there is no disk idle time. 
 
> I'd suggest that you launch evolution from the command line in an xterm so 
> you can watch for any diagnostic messages. 
 
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. 
 
Thanks! 
-- 
______________________________________________
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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed1.bredband.com!
bredband!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist
Newsgroups: fa.linux.kernel
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+fa.linux.kernel=40ifi.uio...@vger.kernel.org>
Original-Date: 	Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:14:18 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <a...@digeo.com>
To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org>
Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions
Original-Message-Id: <20030228111418.40eefd3b.akpm@digeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030228143811.9488.qmail@linuxmail.org>
Original-References: <20030228143811.9488.qm...@linuxmail.org>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2003 19:14:15.0462 (UTC) FILETIME=[95999C60:01C2DF5D]
Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Organization: Internet mailing list
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:15:13 GMT
Message-ID: <fa.ho8c2g9.1u04qj5@ifi.uio.no>
References: <fa.i19v2ne.27q2p0@ifi.uio.no>
Lines: 26

"Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> Maybe I did not express myself correctly in my previous message: there are no such 
> delays. Since the moment I click Reply for the very first time until the window opens up, 
> there is no disk idle time. 
>  
> > I'd suggest that you launch evolution from the command line in an xterm so 
> > you can watch for any diagnostic messages. 
>  
> 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 

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

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!
newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!
small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!nsc.no!nextra.com!uio.no!
nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist
Newsgroups: fa.linux.kernel
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+fa.linux.kernel=40ifi.uio...@vger.kernel.org>
Original-Message-ID: <20030228231220.19048.qmail@linuxmail.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404)
From: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org>
To: a...@digeo.com, "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org>
Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Original-Date: 	Sat, 01 Mar 2003 00:12:20 +0100
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions
X-Originating-Ip: 213.4.13.153
X-Originating-Server: ws5-2.us4.outblaze.com
Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Organization: Internet mailing list
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:13:16 GMT
Message-ID: <fa.ganv5ci.8g6qos@ifi.uio.no>
Lines: 33

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Andrew Morton <a...@digeo.com> 
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:14:18 -0800 
To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> 
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions 
 
> "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
syros.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!
small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!uio.no!
nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist
Newsgroups: fa.linux.kernel
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+fa.linux.kernel=40ifi.uio...@vger.kernel.org>
Original-Date: 	Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:16:24 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <a...@digeo.com>
To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org>
Cc: felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions
Original-Message-Id: <20030228151624.2198ea39.akpm@digeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030228231220.19048.qmail@linuxmail.org>
Original-References: <20030228231220.19048.qm...@linuxmail.org>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2003 23:19:51.0758 (UTC) FILETIME=[E51DEEE0:01C2DF7F]
Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: 	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Organization: Internet mailing list
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:21:45 GMT
Message-ID: <fa.hnljd08.1tlcr32@ifi.uio.no>
References: <fa.ganv5ci.8g6qos@ifi.uio.no>
Lines: 40

"Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Andrew Morton <a...@digeo.com> 
> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:14:18 -0800 
> To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@linuxmail.org> 
> Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions 
>  
> > "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alf...@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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

			   USENET Archives


Notice
******

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or 
research.


Electronic mail:			      WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com		         http://tech-insider.org/