lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kswapd continuously active
On Fri, Feb 05 2010, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Friday 2010-02-05 14:00, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> >January 25 Feb-05
> >> >MemTotal: 8166752 kB 8166752
> >> >MemFree: 3243552 kB 3781776
> >> >Buffers: 207968 kB 4912
> >> >Cached: 2728216 kB 2684400
> >> >SwapCached: 0 kB 0
> >> >Active: 2203136 kB 495624
> >> >Inactive: 2152544 kB 3263136
> >> >Active(anon): 1167256 kB 488168
> >> >Inactive(anon): 252952 kB 583912
> >> >Active(file): 1035880 kB 7456
> >> >Inactive(file): 1899592 kB 2679224
> >> >Unevictable: 0 kB 0
> >> >Mlocked: 0 kB 0
> >> >SwapTotal: 0 kB 0
> >> >SwapFree: 0 kB 0
> >> >Dirty: 141624 kB 2662184
> >> >Writeback: 0 kB ..
> >>
> >> Today this happened again. So I looked at /proc/meminfo to paste today's
> >> values next to those from January. That is when I noticed the "Dirty"
> >> value - and thus I ran
> >>
> >> watch -d -n 1 'grep Dirty /proc/meminfo'
> >>
> >> What I see is that the dirty amount - a sync is currently running -
> >> only decreases with at most 400 KB/sec, often less than that.
> >
> >I'm guessing the barriers and commits are what is killing your
> >performance. What happens with barrier=0?
>
> The ext4 filesystem is already mounted with barrier=0. If there
> is any block-level barriers I also can turn off, what would be
> the command?

barrier=0 is enough. I do wonder why your writeback rate is that slow,
then. The disk has write back caching enabled?

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-05 14:15    [W:0.049 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site