Messages in this thread |  | | From | Marc-Christian Petersen <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ... | Date | Tue, 27 May 2003 22:24:22 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday 27 May 2003 22:10, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Andrea,
> 10/15 performance drop doesn't sound good, no matter what hardware ;). lol, well. YES ;)
> However in contest I recall there was quite an improvement in latency at > least (I mean, it had some positive effect too) Yeah, but latency != throughput ;)
> Getting the best throughput and latency at the same time is normally not > possible, however evaluating if it's losing excessive throughput given a > certain latency improvement is difficult. It is possible. I use 2.5 (preferably -mm tree) now more then any 2.4*. I use the AS (Anticipatory IO Scheduler) which AKPM included in his tree. This scheduler is kicking ass. Everything is rock fast, I can trash my HD to whatever I want, I still get no mouse stops, keyboard stops or anything like that. Even starting up multiple programs is possible while trashing the HD. Sure, it takes longer but it works :)
I try to backport BIO and then AS for quite over 2 weeks now, but it seems, at least for me, that it's an impossible mission ;(
> I'll try to find what's the precise reason of the interactivity drop cool. Thanks.
> with the 2.4.18->2.4.19 blkdev changes on Thu. I think I shortly looked > into it once but there was no definitive answer, or anyways going back > to the 2.4.18 code didn't appeal or make much sense. Yeah, that's not an option. The throughput has been increased in 2.4.19 compared to 2.4.18.
> However I suspect this responsiveness issue could be storage hardware > dependent. Hmm, I am quite sure that it isn't. I have ton's of mostly totally different hardware in my company, also test machines for WOLK at freenet.de (the biggest I had was a QUAD Xeon 1GHz with 16GB memory and hardware RAID (Compaq ML570 to be exact (f*cking nice machine btw. ;) and I even hit it on that machine. Friends of mine having also different hardware then me, also hitting that bug. _If_ it's the case of storage hardware, then many storage hardware is affected ;)
> The sentence by Linus in the last few days while talking with Jens, > about storage that reorders stuff and starve requests at the two ends of > the platter was very scary, maybe you're really bitten by something like > that. Linux does the right thing but your hardware keeps posting stuff > under the os and mine doesn't. Oh, did I miss something at lkml or was it privately?
ciao, Marc
- 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/
|  |