Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 May 2003 08:04:32 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ... |
| |
On Wed, May 28 2003, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2003 04:04, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 May 2003 19:50, manish wrote: > > > > Hi Manish, > > > > > It is not a system hang but the processes hang showing the same stack > > > trace. This is certainly not a pause since the bonnie processes that > > > were hung (or deadlocked) never completed after several hrs. The stack > > > trace was the same. > > > > then you are hitting a different bug or a bug related to the issues > > Christian Klose and me and $tons of others were complaining. > > > > The bug you are hitting might be the problem with "process stuck in D > > state" Andrea Arcangeli fixed, let me guess, over half a year ago or so. > > > > In case you have a good mind to try to address your issue, you might want > > to try out the patch you can find here: > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.21rc2 > >aa1/9980_fix-pausing-2 > > > > ALL: Anyone who has this kind of pauses/stops/mouse is dead/keyboard is > > dead/: speak _NOW_ please, doesn't matter who you are! > > Yo! > > I'll throw my babushka into the ring too. I think it's obvious from MCP's > comments that I've been involved in testing this problem. I've spent hours, > possibly days trying to find a way to fix the pauses introduced since > 2.4.19pre1. I agree with what MCP describes that the machine can come to a > standstill under any sort of disk i/o and is unusable for a variable length > of time. I've been playing with all sorts of numbers in my patchset to try > and limit it with only mild success. The best results I've had without a > major decrease in throughput was using akpm's read latency 2 patch but by > significantly reducing the nr_requests. It was changing the number of > requests that I discovered dropping them to 4 fixed the problem but destroyed > write throughput. I was pleased to see AA give the problem recognition after > my contest results on his kernel but disappointed that the problem only was > reduced, not fixed.
Does the problem change at all if you force batch_requests to 0?
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |