Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:28:25 +0530 | Subject | Re: Swappiness vs. mmap() and interactive response | From | Balbir Singh <> |
| |
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 14:35 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> (cc to linux-mm and Rik) >> >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > So, I just set up Ubuntu Jaunty (using Linux 2.6.28) on a quad core phenom box, >> > and then I did the following (with XFS over LVM): >> > >> > mv /500gig/of/data/on/disk/one /disk/two >> > >> > This quickly caused the system to. grind.. to... a.... complete..... halt. >> > Basically every UI operation, including the mouse in Xorg, started experiencing >> > multiple second lag and delays. This made the system essentially unusable -- >> > for example, just flipping to the window where the "mv" command was running >> > took 10 seconds on more than one occasion. Basically a "click and get coffee" >> > interface. >> >> I have some question and request. >> >> 1. please post your /proc/meminfo >> 2. Do above copy make tons swap-out? IOW your disk read much faster than write? >> 3. cache limitation of memcgroup solve this problem? >> 4. Which disk have your /bin and /usr/bin? >> > > FWIW I fundamentally object to 3 as being a solution. >
memcgroup were not created to solve latency problems, but they do isolate memory and if that helps latency, I don't see why that is a problem. I don't think isolating applications that we think are not important and interfere or consume more resources than desired is a bad solution.
> I still think the idea of read-ahead driven drop-behind is a good one, > alas last time we brought that up people thought differently.
I vaguely remember the patches, but can't recollect the details.
Balbir -- 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/
| |