linux-kernel - Re: Why is deleting (or reading) files not counted as IO-Wait in top?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080103082545.GA6516@citd.de>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:25:45 +0100
From:	Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@...d.de>
To:	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why is deleting (or reading) files not counted as IO-Wait in
	top?

On 03.01.2008 02:16, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 January 2008 21:35:03 Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > 
> > Currently i'm deleting about 500.000 files on a XFS-filesystem which 
> > takes a few minutes, as i had a top open i saw that 'wa' is shown as 
> > 0.0% (Nothing else running currently) and everything except 'id' is near 
> > the bottom too. Kernel is 2.6.23.11.
> > 
> > So, as 'rm -rf' is essentially a IO (or seek, to be more correct)-bound 
> > task, shouldn't that count as "Waiting for IO"?
> > 
> > The man-page of top says:
> > 'Amount of time the CPU has been waiting for I/O to complete.'
> > 
> > But AFAICT wa only seams to be (ac)counted for writing and not for 
> > reading. I come to that conclusion because, when i fire 'sync' i can see 
> > some percent wa for a few seconds.
> 
> The IOWAIT time is the IDLE time that was spent waiting
> for I/O. (meaning that there were no tasks running, but some were waiting on I/O)
> 
> Thus if you have another task that is not I/O bound, it can run in that time,
> and ideally, you shouldn't notice any I/O slowdown, but the iowait time will decrease.
> 
> It wasn't the case before CFS introduction. I did few tests that showed almost 50% slowdown 
> when running another task in that iowait time.
> It is not longer a problem with CFS.

I can understand that, but in my case nothing else was running, so i 
would expect about 46%-50% wa (Dual Core Processor).




Bis denn

-- 
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/