Re: [PATCH] O6int for interactivity

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

Wiktor Wodecki wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 08:43:05PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:31, Wiktor Wodecki wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:18:33PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>
>>>>That _might_ (add salt) be priorities of kernel threads dropping too low.
>>>>
>>>>I'm also seeing occasional total stalls under heavy I/O in the order of
>>>>10-12 seconds (even the disk stops).  I have no idea if that's something
>>>>in mm or the scheduler changes though, as I've yet to do any isolation
>>>>and/or tinkering.  All I know at this point is that I haven't seen it in
>>>>stock yet.
>>>>
>>>I've seen this too while doing a huge nfs transfer from a 2.6 machine to
>>>a 2.4 machine (sparc32). Thought it'd be something with the nfs changes
>>>which were recently, might be the scheduler, tho. Ah, and it is fully
>>>reproducable.
>>>
>>Well I didn't want to post this yet because I'm not sure if it's a good 
>>workaround yet but it looks like a reasonable compromise, and since you have a 
>>testcase it will be interesting to see if it addresses it. It's possible that 
>>a task is being requeued every millisecond, and this is a little smarter. It 
>>allows cpu hogs to run for 100ms before being round robinned, but shorter for 
>>interactive tasks. Can you try this O7 which applies on top of O6.1 please:
>>
>>available here:
>>http://kernel.kolivas.org/2.5
>>
>
>sorry, the problem still persists. Aborting the cp takes less time, tho
>(about 10 seconds now, before it was about 30 secs). I'm aborting during
>a big file, FYI.
>

OK if the IO actually stops then it shouldn't be an IO scheduler or
request allocation problem, but could you try to capture a sysrq T
trace for me during the freeze.