On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:44:23AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Nice idea!
>
> I suspect the reason 5 seconds is good is probably because it's the same value
> as dirty_writeback_centisecs.
>
> I think this patch will sit nicely in my tree thanks :).
Fine ;) it's in -mm too, I hope it's stable and it doesn't introduce
regressions ;).
BTW, I tested dbench (not after a fresh mke2fs so there might be
minor fragmentation variations) and it doesn't seem affected by it (it's
in the noise range) and I take it as a good thing. dbench keeps looking
weird, if you notice the lower bandwidth of 273 completed in 12m13s
while the higher bandwidth of 291 completed in 12m15s... perhaps it
prints the best bandwith of the passes and it's not an average.
set to 500:
Throughput 288.217 MB/sec 50 procs
real 12m14.921s
user 9m49.185s
sys 25m38.896s
Throughput 306.644 MB/sec 50 procs
real 12m15.696s
user 10m18.207s
sys 26m39.704s
set to 0:
Throughput 291.415 MB/sec 50 procs
real 12m15.668s
user 9m50.229s
sys 26m58.341s
Throughput 273.05 MB/sec 50 procs
real 12m13.098s
user 9m28.964s
sys 23m58.430s
xeon:/mnt #
-
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]
| |
 |