From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262321AbTJTEwd (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:52:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262400AbTJTEwd (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:52:33 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:48611 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262321AbTJTEwa (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:52:30 -0400 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Nick Piggin Cc: rwhron@earthlink.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] I/O regression after 2.6.0-test5 Message-Id: <20031019215259.7b1c7a01.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <3F933BE7.5080700@cyberone.com.au> References: <20031020003745.GA2794@rushmore> <3F933BE7.5080700@cyberone.com.au> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > rwhron@earthlink.net wrote: > > >There was about a 50% regression in jobs/minute in AIM7 > >database workload on quad P3 Xeon. The CPU time has not > >gone up, so the extra run time is coming from something > >else. (I/O or I/O scheduler?) > > > >tiobench sequential reads has a significant regression too. > > > >Regression appears unrelated to filesystem type. > > > >dbench was not affected. > > > >The AIM7 was run on ext2. > > > > Yeah I'd say its all due to the IO scheduler. There is a problem > I'm thinking about how to fix - its the likely cause of this too. > What change do you think it was due to? It's rather strange that test6 is slow but test6-mm is not: generally the IO scheduler regressions enter -mm first ;) Testing versus deadline would be interesting.