[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
    On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:09:15 -0400
    Theodore Tso <> wrote:

    > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:03:53PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
    > >
    > > You make it sound like this is hard to do... I was running into
    > > this problem *every day* until I moved to XFS recently. I'm
    > > running a fairly beefy desktop (VMware running a crappy Windows
    > > install w/AV junk on it, builds, icecream and large mailboxes) and
    > > have a lot of RAM, but it became unusable for minutes at a time,
    > > which was just totally unacceptable, thus the switch. Things have
    > > been better since, but are still a little choppy.
    > >
    > I have 4 gigs of memory on my laptop, and I've never seen it these
    > sorts of issues. So maybe filesystem hackers don't have enough
    > memory; or we don't use the right workloads? It would help if I
    > understood how to trigger these disaster cases. I've had to work
    > *really* hard (as in dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/dirty-me-harder) in order
    > to get even a 30 second fsync() delay. So understanding what sort of
    > things you do that cause that many files data blocks to be dirtied,
    > and/or what is causing a major read workload, would be useful.
    > It may be that we just need to tune the VM to be much more aggressive
    > about pushing dirty pages to the disk sooner. Understanding how the
    > dynamics are working would be the first step.

    Well I think that's part of the problem; this is bigger than just
    filesystems; I've been using ext3 since before I started seeing this,
    so it seems like a bad VM/fs interaction may be to blame.

    > > I remember early in the 2.6.x days there was a lot of focus on
    > > making interactive performance good, and for a long time it was.
    > > But this I/O problem has been around for a *long* time now... What
    > > happened? Do not many people run into this daily? Do all the
    > > filesystem hackers run with special mount options to mitigate the
    > > problem?
    > All I can tell you is that *I* don't run into them, even when I was
    > using ext3 and before I got an SSD in my laptop. I don't understand
    > why; maybe because I don't get really nice toys like systems with
    > 32G's of memory. Or maybe it's because I don't use icecream (whatever
    > that is). What ever it is, it would be useful to get some solid
    > reproduction information, with details about hardware configuration,
    > and information collecting using sar and scripts that gather
    > /proc/meminfo every 5 seconds, and what the applications were doing at
    > the time.

    icecream is a distributed compiler system. Like distcc but a bit more
    cross-compile & heterogeneous compiler friendly.

    > It might also be useful for someone to try reducing the amount of
    > memory the system is using by using mem= on the boot line, and see if
    > that changes things, and to try simplifying the application workload,
    > and/or using iotop to determine what is most contributing to the
    > problem. (And of course, this needs to be done with someone using
    > ext3, since both ext4 and XFS use delayed allocation, which will
    > largely make this problem go away.)

    Yep, and that's where my blame comes in. I whined about this to a few
    people, like Arjan, who provided workarounds, but never got beyond
    that. Some real debugging would be needed to find & fix the root

    Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-25 05:01    [W:0.023 / U:2.556 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site