[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101102131239.GA8680@think>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:12:39 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.COM>
To: Sanjoy Mahajan <sanjoy@...n.edu>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Aidar Kultayev <the.aidar@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Peter.Zijl@....EDU
Subject: Re: 2.6.36 io bring the system to its knees
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 07:47:15AM -0400, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
> Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > > This has the appearance of some really bad IO or VM latency
> > > problem. Unfixed and present in stable kernel versions going from
> > > years ago all the way to v2.6.36.
> >
> > Hmmm, the workload you're describing here has two special parts.
> > First it dramatically overloads the disk, and then it has guis doing
> > things waiting for the disk.
>
> I think I see this same issue every few days when I back up my hard
> drive to a USB hard drive using rsync. While the backup is running, the
> interactive response is bad. A reproducible measurement of the badness
> is starting an rxvt with F8 (bound to "rxvt &" in my .twmrc). Often it
> takes 8 seconds for the window to appear (as it just did about 2 minutes
> ago)! (Starting a subsequent rxvt is quick.)
So this sounds like the backup is just thrashing your cache. Latencies
starting an app are less surprising than latencies where a running app
doesn't respond at all.
Does rsync have the option to do an fadvise DONTNEED?
-chris
--
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