Aaron Carroll ha scritto:
quoted text
> You still end up with reduced global throughput as
> you've shown in the ``Short-term time guarantees'' table.  It is an
> interesting case though... since the lower performance is not though 
> fault
> of the process it doesn't seem fair to ``punish'' it.
Just a note about that table. The lower aggregate throughput of bfq is 
due to the fact that, because of the higher number of movies being read, 
a higher percentage of not-that-profitable accesses is being performed 
under bfq wrt to cfq. As shown in the complete logs of the aggregate 
throughput in the raw results, the aggregate throughput with bfq and cfq 
is practically the same when the number of movies is the same.
The figure in the "Aggregate throughput" subsection is probably best 
suited for a comparison of the performance of the two schedulers with 
sequential accesses under the same conditions (the figure refers to the 
2, 128 MB long, files, but we got virtually the same results in all the 
other tests).
I do agree on that these experiments should be repeated with different 
(faster) devices.

Paolo
quoted text
>
> -- Aaron
>
>


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