This patch was discussed back in march, and I still haven't seen it show
up in the source pool. I was wondering if it just feel through the
cracks or if it was planned for a specific future release. If the
attached doesn't provide enough context for you to remember what this is
all about, just let me know...
-mark
On Mon, Oct 24 2005, Mark Seger wrote:
> This patch was discussed back in march, and I still haven't seen it show
> up in the source pool. I was wondering if it just feel through the
> cracks or if it was planned for a specific future release. If the
> attached doesn't provide enough context for you to remember what this is
> all about, just let me know...
Refresh my memory on where the discussion went after this email, I don't
recall. Did the patch work for you?
--
Jens Axboe
yes, the patch worked. The general discussion was that the byte counter
gets incremented when requests are queued, not when they're acted upon
as is the case with the count of I/Os. As a result, the disk write
numbers don't make any sense reporting impossibly high numbers (>100MB
and as high as 450!) during some times and at other reporting zeros.
The entire time, the I/O counts are happily showing what appear to be
correct numbers. Here's a snapshot taken during a portion of a 2GB file
file to /tmp.
# DISK SUMMARY (/sec)
# Reads R-Merged R-KBytes Writes W-Merged W-KBytes
14:26:38 0 0 0 0 0 0
14:26:39 0 0 0 90 4391 18368
14:26:40 0 0 0 577 12603 52696
14:26:41 0 0 0 563 107835 446728
14:26:42 0 0 0 445 0 0
14:26:43 0 0 0 442 0 0
14:26:44 0 0 0 445 0 0
14:26:45 0 0 0 354 0 0
14:26:46 0 0 0 442 0 0
14:26:47 0 0 0 443 0 0
14:26:48 0 0 0 408 0 0
14:26:49 0 0 4 439 782 3280
14:26:50 1 0 0 462 12230 51160
14:26:51 0 0 0 574 88342 366116
14:26:52 0 0 0 477 32881 136604
14:26:53 0 0 0 443 9101 37656
14:26:54 0 0 0 442 11779 48736
14:26:55 0 0 0 373 0 0
14:26:56 0 0 0 415 0 0
-mark
Jens Axboe wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 24 2005, Mark Seger wrote:
>
>
>>This patch was discussed back in march, and I still haven't seen it show
>>up in the source pool. I was wondering if it just feel through the
>>cracks or if it was planned for a specific future release. If the
>>attached doesn't provide enough context for you to remember what this is
>>all about, just let me know...
>>
>>
>
>Refresh my memory on where the discussion went after this email, I don't
>recall. Did the patch work for you?
>
>
>
>
On Tue, Oct 25 2005, Mark Seger wrote:
> yes, the patch worked. The general discussion was that the byte counter
> gets incremented when requests are queued, not when they're acted upon
> as is the case with the count of I/Os. As a result, the disk write
> numbers don't make any sense reporting impossibly high numbers (>100MB
> and as high as 450!) during some times and at other reporting zeros.
> The entire time, the I/O counts are happily showing what appear to be
> correct numbers. Here's a snapshot taken during a portion of a 2GB file
> file to /tmp.
I've applied my path to the for-linus git branch, I will push it for
2.6.15 as well. Thanks for reminding me!
--
Jens Axboe