On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:10:57 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Seems a pretty fundamental change which could do with some careful > > > benchmarking, methinks. > > > > > > See, your patch amounts to "do more seeks to improve one test case". > > > Surely other testcases will worsen. What are they? > > > > Yes, completely agree! I think Arjans patch makes a heap of sense, but > > some numbers would be great to see. > > Arjan gave the relevant hard numbers: > > | With latencytop, I noticed that the (in memory) atime updates during a > | kernel build had latencies of 600 msec or longer [...] > | > | With this patch, the latencies for atime updates (and similar > | operation) go down by a factor of 3x to 4x ! > > atime update latencies went down by a factor of 3x-4x ... > > but what bothers me even more is the large picture. Linux's development > is still fundamentally skewed towards bandwidth (which goes up with > hardware advances anyway), while the focus on latencies is very lacking > (which users do care about much more and which usually does _not_ > improve with improved hardware), so i cannot see why we shouldnt apply > this. Reminds me of the illogical, almost superstitious resistence > against the relatime patch. (which is not in 2.6.24 mind you - killed > for good) Try `mount -o relatime' and prepare to be surprised ;) > if bandwidth hurts anywhere, it will be pointed out and fixed, we've got > like tons of bandwidth benchmarks and it's _easy_ to fix bandwidth > problems. But _finally_ we now have desktop latency tools, hard numbers > and patches that fix them, but what do we do ... we put up extra > roadblocks?? > > so lets just goddamn apply this _trivial_ patch. This isnt an intrusive > 1000 line rewrite that is hard to revert. If it causes any bandwidth > problems, it will be just as trivial to undo. If we do anything else we > just stiffle the still young and very much under-represented "lets fix > latencies that bothers people" movement. If anything we need _positive_ > discrimination for latency related fixes (which treatment this fix does > not need at all - all it needs is _equal_ footing with the countless > bandwidth patches that go into the kernel all the time), otherwise it > will never take off and become as healthy as bandwidth optimizations. > Ok? > I think the situation is that we've asked for some additional what-can-be-hurt-by-this testing. Yes, we could sling it out there and wait for the reports. But often that's a pretty painful process and regressions can be discovered too late for us to do anything about them. - 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/