From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262499AbVFVBlf (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:41:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262504AbVFVBlf (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:41:35 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.93.40.71]:62895 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262499AbVFVBl2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:41:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:41:21 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Badari Pulavarty Cc: Andrew Morton , shaggy@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: 2.6.12-mm1 & 2K lun testing (JFS problem ?) Message-ID: <20050622014121.GB10690@holomorphy.com> References: <1118856977.4301.406.camel@dyn9047017072.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050616002451.01f7e9ed.akpm@osdl.org> <1118951458.4301.478.camel@dyn9047017072.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050616133730.1924fca3.akpm@osdl.org> <1118965381.4301.488.camel@dyn9047017072.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050616175130.22572451.akpm@osdl.org> <42B2E7D2.9080705@us.ibm.com> <20050617141331.078e5f8f.akpm@osdl.org> <1119400494.4620.33.camel@dyn9047017102.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1119400494.4620.33.camel@dyn9047017102.beaverton.ibm.com> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 05:34:54PM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > Hi Andrew & Shaggy, > Here is the summary of 2K lun testing on 2.6.12-mm1. > When I tune dirty ratios and CFQ queue depths, things > seems to be running fine. > echo 20 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio > echo 20 > /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio > echo 4 > /sys/block//queue/nr_requests > But, I am running into JFS problem. I can't kill my > "dd" process. They all get stuck in: > (I am going to try ext3). If you could get unabridged profiling data for raw vs. fs (so it can be properly sorted) I would be interested in that. Early indications were large amounts of time spent in shrink_zone(), obtained by re-sorting the truncated profile listings. It indicated the time spent in shrink_zone() was 26.3 times as much time spent in default_idle(). Typically copying to and from userspace are enormous overheads, but aren't observable in the truncated/mis-sorted profiles, which calls them into question, barring unreported usage of O_DIRECT. There are also no totals reported, which are helpful for interpreting realtime behavior. -- wli