Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> remember that we have seen and discussed something like this before,
>> it's still a puzzle to me...
> I do wonder about that performance _increase_ with blktrace enabled. I
> Interesting question indeed.
> In those tests, when blktrace is running, are the relay buffers only
> written to or they are also read ?
blktrace (the utility) was running too - so the relay buffere /were/
being read and stored out to disk elsewhere.
> Running the tests without consuming the buffers (in overwrite mode)
> would tell us more about the nature of the disturbance causing the
> performance increase.
I'd have to write a utility to enable the traces, but then not read. Let
me think about that.
> Also, a kernel trace could help us understand more thoroughly what is
> happening there.. is it caused by the scheduler ? memory allocation ?
> data cache alignment ?
Yep - when I get some time, I'll look into that. [Clearly not a gating
issue for marker support...]
> I would suggest that you try aligning the block layer data structures
> accessed by blktrace on L2 cacheline size and compare the results (when
> blktrace is disabled).
Again, when I get some 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]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]