[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jesper Krogh <> wrote:
>> David Rees wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Jesper Krogh <> wrote:
>>>> I know this has been discussed before:
>>>> [129401.996244] INFO: task updatedb.mlocat:31092 blocked for more than 480
>>>> seconds.
>>> Ouch - 480 seconds, how much memory is in that machine, and how slow
>>> are the disks?
>> The 480 secondes is not the "wait time" but the time gone before
>> the message is printed. It the kernel-default it was earlier 120
>> seconds but thats changed by Ingo Molnar back in september. I do
>> get a lot of less noise but it really doesn't tell anything about
>> the nature of the problem.
> That's true - the detector is really simple and only tries to flag
> suspiciously long uninterruptible waits. It prints out the context
> it finds but otherwise does not try to go deep about exactly why
> that delay happened.
> Would you agree that the message is correct, and that there is some
> sort of "tasks wait way too long" problem on your system?

The message is absolutely correct (it was even at 120s).. thats too long
for what I consider good.

> Considering:
>> The systes spec:
>> 32GB of memory. The disks are a Nexsan SataBeast with 42 SATA drives in
>> Raid10 connected using 4Gbit fibre-channel. I'll let it up to you to
>> decide if thats fast or slow?
> [...]
>> Yes, I've hit 120s+ penalties just by saving a file in vim.
> i think it's fair to say that an almost 10 minutes uninterruptible
> sleep sucks to the user, by any reasonable standard. It is the year
> 2009, not 1959.
> The delay might be difficult to fix, but it's still reality - and
> that's the purpose of this particular debug helper: to rub reality
> under our noses, whether we like it or not.
> ( _My_ personal pain threshold for waiting for the computer is
> around 1 _second_. If any command does something that i cannot
> Ctrl-C or Ctrl-Z my way out of i get annoyed. So the historic
> limit for the hung tasks check was 10 seconds, then 60 seconds.
> But people argued that it's too low so it was raised to 120 then
> 480 seconds. If almost 10 minutes of uninterruptible wait is still
> acceptable then the watchdog can be turned off (because it's
> basically pointless to run it in that case - no amount of delay
> will be 'bad'). )

Thats about the same definitions for me. But I can accept that if I
happen to be doing something really crazy.. but this is merely about
reading some files in and generating indexes out of them. None of the
file are "huge".. < 15GB for the top 3, average < 100MB.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-24 12:13    [W:0.387 / U:1.564 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site