[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090429170620.GA6307@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:06:20 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Elladan <elladan@...imo.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, tytso@....edu,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: evict use-once pages first
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:36:51PM -0700, Elladan wrote:
> Rik,
>
> This patch appears to significantly improve application latency while a large
> file copy runs. I'm not seeing behavior that implies continuous bad page
> replacement.
>
> I'm still seeing some general lag, which I attribute to general filesystem
> slowness. For example, latencytop sees many events like these:
>
> down xfs_buf_lock _xfs_buf_find xfs_buf_get_flags 1475.8 msec 5.9 %
This actually is contention on the buffer lock, and most likely
happens because it's trying to access a buffer that's beeing read
in currently.
>
> xfs_buf_iowait xfs_buf_iostart xfs_buf_read_flags 1740.9 msec 2.6 %
That's an actual metadata read.
> Writing a page to disk 1042.9 msec 43.7 %
>
> It also occasionally sees long page faults:
>
> Page fault 2068.3 msec 21.3 %
>
> I guess XFS (and the elevator) is just doing a poor job managing latency
> (particularly poor since all the IO on /usr/bin is on the reader disk).
The filesystem doesn't really decide which priorities to use, except
for some use of the WRITE_SYNC which is used rather minimall in XFS in
2.6.28.
> Creating block layer request 451.4 msec 14.4 %
I guess that a wait in get_request because we're above nr_requests..
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists