linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
@ 2003-08-05  5:04 Martin Konold
  2003-08-05  5:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Martin Konold @ 2003-08-05  5:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel


Hi,

when using  2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM) I notice 
very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to 2.4.21.

The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in kmail. While 
2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock for about 2-3 seconds.

I am using maildir folders on reiserfs.

Can anyone verify this behaviour?

What other information do you need?

Regards,
-- martin

Dipl.-Phys. Martin Konold
e r f r a k o n
Erlewein, Frank, Konold & Partner - Beratende Ingenieure und Physiker
Nobelstrasse 15, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
fon: 0711 67400963, fax: 0711 67400959
email: martin.konold@erfrakon.de


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05  5:04 Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21 Martin Konold
@ 2003-08-05  5:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
  2003-08-05  6:26 ` Andrew Morton
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-08-05  5:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Martin Konold; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:04:22AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> when using  2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM) I notice 
> very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to 2.4.21.
> The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in kmail. While 
> 2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock for about 2-3 seconds.
> I am using maildir folders on reiserfs.
> Can anyone verify this behaviour?
> What other information do you need?

CPU profiles, e.g.
readprofile -n -m /boot/System.map-`uname -r` | sort -rn -k 1,1 | head -25

Also logs of vmstat 1.

-- wli

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05  5:04 Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21 Martin Konold
  2003-08-05  5:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
@ 2003-08-05  6:26 ` Andrew Morton
  2003-08-05  8:16   ` Oleg Drokin
  2003-08-05 22:43   ` Peter Chubb
  2003-08-05  7:23 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
  2003-08-05 12:52 ` Bernd Schubert
  3 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2003-08-05  6:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Martin Konold; +Cc: linux-kernel

Martin Konold <martin.konold@erfrakon.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
>  when using  2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM) I notice 
>  very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to 2.4.21.
> 
>  The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in kmail. While 
>  2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock for about 2-3 seconds.
> 
>  I am using maildir folders on reiserfs.

There is a bug in old kmail versions wherein they do silly things if the
filesystem alleges that its optimum I/O size is much larger than 4k.

2.6's reiserfs tell applications that its optimum IO size is 128k, and the
bug bites.

Try mounting your reiserfs filesystems with the "nolargeio" option.

A `mount -o remount,nolargeio' will probably work too.

Please test that, send a report, and if it fixes it, upgrade your kmail.

Thanks.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05  5:04 Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21 Martin Konold
  2003-08-05  5:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
  2003-08-05  6:26 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2003-08-05  7:23 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
  2003-08-05 12:52 ` Bernd Schubert
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Alfaro Solana @ 2003-08-05  7:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Martin Konold; +Cc: LKML

On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 07:04, Martin Konold wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> when using  2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM) I notice 
> very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to 2.4.21.

Please, upgrade to the latest 2.6.0-test kernel, as there are a lot of
people working on the CPU scheduler and interactivity. As of this mail,
it's 2.6.0-test2-bk4. If you prefer, you can also test 2.6.0-test2-mm4
(Andrew Morton patches on top of 2.6.0-test2).

This way, you can help us in improving the interactive feeling of future
2.6 kernels.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05  6:26 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2003-08-05  8:16   ` Oleg Drokin
  2003-08-05 22:43   ` Peter Chubb
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Drokin @ 2003-08-05  8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Martin Konold, linux-kernel

Hello!

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:26:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Try mounting your reiserfs filesystems with the "nolargeio" option.
> A `mount -o remount,nolargeio' will probably work too.

nolargeio requires an argument, so it should look like
mount -o remount,nolargeio=1

Bye,
    Oleg

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05  5:04 Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21 Martin Konold
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2003-08-05  7:23 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
@ 2003-08-05 12:52 ` Bernd Schubert
  2003-08-05 13:37   ` Rahul Karnik
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Bernd Schubert @ 2003-08-05 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

On Tuesday 05 August 2003 07:04, Martin Konold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when using  2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM) I
> notice very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to 2.4.21.
>
> The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in kmail. While
> 2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock for about 2-3 seconds.
>
> I am using maildir folders on reiserfs.
>
> Can anyone verify this behaviour?
>

Yes, I can definitely verify this, its not only related to kde/kmail, all 
other application are affected as well. Btw, I already upgraded to 
2.6.0-test2. 
Also, the slowdown seems to be related to hd-accessing/caching. My root-fs hd 
makes rather loud noises on accessing it -- with 2.6.0-testX the frequency of 
disk-accessing and so also the noise-level has dramatically increased 
compared to 2.4.x


So following the advices, I will try bk4 and mm4 and also will do the 

>CPU profiles, e.g.
>readprofile -n -m /boot/System.map-`uname -r` | sort -rn -k 1,1 | head -25
>Also logs of vmstat 1.

stuff.


Regards,	
	Bernd

-- 
Bernd Schubert
Physikalisch Chemisches Institut / Theoretische Chemie
Universität Heidelberg
INF 229
69120 Heidelberg
e-mail: bernd.schubert@pci.uni-heidelberg.de

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05 12:52 ` Bernd Schubert
@ 2003-08-05 13:37   ` Rahul Karnik
  2003-08-05 21:29     ` Martin Konold
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Rahul Karnik @ 2003-08-05 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bernd Schubert; +Cc: linux-kernel

If disk is involved, your problem might simply be the incorrect 
readahead value. Try "hdparm -a 512".

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105830624016066&w=2

-Rahul
-- 
Rahul Karnik
rahul@genebrew.com


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05 13:37   ` Rahul Karnik
@ 2003-08-05 21:29     ` Martin Konold
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Martin Konold @ 2003-08-05 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rahul Karnik; +Cc: linux-kernel

Am Dienstag, 5. August 2003 15:37 schrieb Rahul Karnik:

Hi,

> If disk is involved, your problem might simply be the incorrect
> readahead value. Try "hdparm -a 512".

This improved the situation noticeably while still beeing slower than 2.4.21.

I will test more recent kernels later tonight.

Regards,
-- martin

Dipl.-Phys. Martin Konold
e r f r a k o n
Erlewein, Frank, Konold & Partner - Beratende Ingenieure und Physiker
Nobelstrasse 15, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
fon: 0711 67400963, fax: 0711 67400959
email: martin.konold@erfrakon.de



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05  6:26 ` Andrew Morton
  2003-08-05  8:16   ` Oleg Drokin
@ 2003-08-05 22:43   ` Peter Chubb
  2003-08-05 23:36     ` Andrew Morton
  2003-08-06  0:55     ` Nick Piggin
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Peter Chubb @ 2003-08-05 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Martin Konold, linux-kernel

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:

Andrew> Martin Konold <martin.konold@erfrakon.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> when using 2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM)
>> I notice very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to
>> 2.4.21.
>> 
>> The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in
>> kmail. While 2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock
>> for about 2-3 seconds.
>> 

I see the same problem, and I'm using XFS.  Booting with
elevator=deadline fixed it for me.  The anticipatory scheduler hurts
if you have a disc optimised for low power consumption, not speed.

--
Dr Peter Chubb  http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au  peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au
You are lost in a maze of BitKeeper repositories,   all slightly different.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05 22:43   ` Peter Chubb
@ 2003-08-05 23:36     ` Andrew Morton
  2003-08-06  0:55     ` Nick Piggin
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2003-08-05 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Chubb; +Cc: martin.konold, linux-kernel

Peter Chubb <peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> wrote:
>
> >> when using 2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM)
>  >> I notice very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to
>  >> 2.4.21.
>  >> 
>  >> The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in
>  >> kmail. While 2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock
>  >> for about 2-3 seconds.
>  >> 
> 
>  I see the same problem, and I'm using XFS.  Booting with
>  elevator=deadline fixed it for me.  The anticipatory scheduler hurts
>  if you have a disc optimised for low power consumption, not speed.

Do you have a specific set of steps with which to reproduce this?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

* Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21
  2003-08-05 22:43   ` Peter Chubb
  2003-08-05 23:36     ` Andrew Morton
@ 2003-08-06  0:55     ` Nick Piggin
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-08-06  0:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Chubb; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Martin Konold, linux-kernel



Peter Chubb wrote:

>>>>>>"Andrew" == Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
>>>>>>
>
>Andrew> Martin Konold <martin.konold@erfrakon.de> wrote:
>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>when using 2.6.0.test1 on a high end laptop (P-IV 2.2 GHz, 1GB RAM)
>>>I notice very significant slowdown in interactive usage compared to
>>>2.4.21.
>>>
>>>The difference is most easily seen when switching folders in
>>>kmail. While 2.4.21 is instantaneous 2.6.0.test1 shows the clock
>>>for about 2-3 seconds.
>>>
>>>
>
>I see the same problem, and I'm using XFS.  Booting with
>elevator=deadline fixed it for me.  The anticipatory scheduler hurts
>if you have a disc optimised for low power consumption, not speed.
>
>

I don't think this generalisation is really fair. All hard disks
have the same basic properties which AS exploits. There seems to
be something going wrong though.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-08-06  0:56 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-08-05  5:04 Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21 Martin Konold
2003-08-05  5:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-05  6:26 ` Andrew Morton
2003-08-05  8:16   ` Oleg Drokin
2003-08-05 22:43   ` Peter Chubb
2003-08-05 23:36     ` Andrew Morton
2003-08-06  0:55     ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05  7:23 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-05 12:52 ` Bernd Schubert
2003-08-05 13:37   ` Rahul Karnik
2003-08-05 21:29     ` Martin Konold

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).