Phillip Lougher: > In your first column (ext3 on squashfs), only a small amount of the > overall cost is being accounted to the 'cat10' command, the bulk of > the work is being accounted to the kernel 'loop1' thread and this isn't > showing up. In the other cases (Squashfs only) the entire cost is being > accounted to the 'cat10' command. The resulting results are therefore > completely bogus, and incorrectly show higher CPU usage for Squashfs. Ah, I forget about the kthread. My question about CPU usage must be due to the kthread. Also I could confirm that the sequential access pattern as you did shows good performance. While the very random access shows worse, it is a positive effect of loopback caching as you wrote in your first reply. Thank you very much. J. R. Okajima -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
