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: [email protected]
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
Martin Konold <[email protected]> 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.
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.
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
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
Universit?t Heidelberg
INF 229
69120 Heidelberg
e-mail: [email protected]
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
[email protected]
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: [email protected]
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Morton <[email protected]> writes:
Andrew> Martin Konold <[email protected]> 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.
Peter Chubb <[email protected]> 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?
Peter Chubb wrote:
>>>>>>"Andrew" == Andrew Morton <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>
>
>Andrew> Martin Konold <[email protected]> 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.