On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:30, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:
> But that is very short and does not affect the interpretation here.
Crap. The sync can take ages.
> The throughput is clearly lower on 2.6 kernel and definitely the
> CPU is in my eyes unnecessarily blocked... Why is the CPU in the
> wait state instead of idle (this is teh problem on 2.6 series
> but CPU is free on 2.4 series)? That's the main problem I think at the
> moment.
There is no wait state accounted for in 2.4 so you won't see it.
Con
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:48, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:
> >>I think the problem here is outside afs.
> >>Just doing this dd test but writing data directly to the ext2
> >>target gives same behaviour, i.e. on 2.4 kernel I see most of the
> >>CPU idle but on 2.6 kernel all that CPU amount is shown as in
> >>wait state. And the numbers from 2.4 kernel show higher throughput
> >>compared to the 2.6 kernel (regardless the the PREEMPT or no PREEMPT
> >>was used).
> >
> > Don't forget to include sync time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |