lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O11int for interactivity


William Lee Irwin III wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:56:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>I'm an IO scheduler type person! What help do you need? I haven't been
>>following the thread.
>>
>
>I'm not sure it was in the thread. Basically, the testers appear to
>associate skips with changes in writeout and/or readin behavior (either
>large amounts of writeout or low amounts of readin), though the effect
>of behavior similar to that surrounding a skip doesn't appear to
>guarantee a skip.
>

Right.

snip vmstat

>
>The load IIRC was some kind of io to an IDE disk while xmms played.
>
>About all I can tell is that when there is a skip, bi is low, but
>the converse does not hold. This appears to be independent of io
>scheduler (I had them try deadline too), and I'm very unsure what to
>make of it. I originally suspected thundering herds from waitqueue
>hashing but things appear to contradict that given the low cs rates.
>

So yeah it could easily be that for example the cpu scheduler is
causing the skip and the low IO rates.

>
>I'm collecting instrumentation patches to see what's going on. The
>first order of business is probably getting the testers to run with
>sleepometer to see if and where they're blocking, but given the io bits
>that are observable some elevator instrumentation might help too (and
>whatever it takes to figure out if a driver is spinning wildly too!).
>

Let me know if you come up with anything significant ;)

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans