[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ...
    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 (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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.023 / U:2.988 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site