I (and many others) have a problem.
I am using Ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron" (alpha).
xorg 1:7.3+10ubuntu6
Linux ubuntu 2.6.24-12-generic #1 SMP Mon Mar 10 15:32:00 UTC 2008
i686 GNU/Linux
MSI P35 Neo motherboard with a HP USB keyboard.
Sometimes the keys get "stuck" and it keeps on repeating the button
all the time.
It often happen when I play games, that it repeats one of the arrow keys.
Now this is a problem that lots of people have experienced.
I've experienced it with other kernels too.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/194214
It is a very annoying bug, that happens to many users.
Restarting Xorg solves the problem.
Someone said this was a problem with dynticks, but I don't know.
Does anyone know what is causing this problem, and how to fix it?
As I don't subscribe to this list, I would like to get a reply sent to my email.
(cc linux-input)
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:32:14 +0100 "Fred ." <[email protected]> wrote:
> I (and many others) have a problem.
>
> I am using Ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron" (alpha).
> xorg 1:7.3+10ubuntu6
> Linux ubuntu 2.6.24-12-generic #1 SMP Mon Mar 10 15:32:00 UTC 2008
> i686 GNU/Linux
>
> MSI P35 Neo motherboard with a HP USB keyboard.
>
> Sometimes the keys get "stuck" and it keeps on repeating the button
> all the time.
> It often happen when I play games, that it repeats one of the arrow keys.
>
> Now this is a problem that lots of people have experienced.
> I've experienced it with other kernels too.
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/194214
>
> It is a very annoying bug, that happens to many users.
> Restarting Xorg solves the problem.
>
> Someone said this was a problem with dynticks, but I don't know.
>
> Does anyone know what is causing this problem, and how to fix it?
>
Hi Fred,
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:32:14 +0100 "Fred ." <[email protected]> wrote:
> I (and many others) have a problem.
So did I :(
>
> I am using Ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron" (alpha).
> xorg 1:7.3+10ubuntu6
> Linux ubuntu 2.6.24-12-generic #1 SMP Mon Mar 10 15:32:00 UTC 2008
> i686 GNU/Linux
>
> MSI P35 Neo motherboard with a HP USB keyboard.
>
> Sometimes the keys get "stuck" and it keeps on repeating the button
> all the time.
> It often happen when I play games, that it repeats one of the arrow keys.
>
> Now this is a problem that lots of people have experienced.
> I've experienced it with other kernels too.
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/194214
>
> It is a very annoying bug, that happens to many users.
> Restarting Xorg solves the problem.
>
> Someone said this was a problem with dynticks, but I don't know.
I had the same problem back in the 2.6.16 to 2.6.20 days (no dynticks).
The only solution I found was to get rid of gnome. Since then I've been
happily running with xfce.
>
> Does anyone know what is causing this problem, and how to fix it?
Yep, try to get rid of gnome, if you don't see the problem anymore then
complain to the gnome developers.
Sebastien.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Fred . wrote:
> Sometimes the keys get "stuck" and it keeps on repeating the button all
> the time. It often happen when I play games, that it repeats one of the
> arrow keys.
> Now this is a problem that lots of people have experienced.
> I've experienced it with other kernels too.
Very probably this is due to broken way how X themselves implement
auto-repeat, instead of using kernel-provided auto-repeat functionality. I
guess you are not able to reproduce this problem in the console, but only
X, right?
> Someone said this was a problem with dynticks, but I don't know.
AFAIK it's a problem with X being confused by scheduler behavior (which is
not necessarily wrong).
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Very probably this is due to broken way how X themselves implement
> auto-repeat, instead of using kernel-provided auto-repeat functionality.
It should be said that X implements auto-repeat out of necessity. While
the kernel can report key down and up events, its further interpretation
of those events is not appropriate. Many combinations of events are
possible, such as keyboard plus mouse, and this precludes the kernel
from providing a full interpretation. It would be wrong for it to even
try. X is the proper place to implement auto-repeat for X.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:14:56PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
> It should be said that X implements auto-repeat out of necessity. While
> the kernel can report key down and up events, its further interpretation
> of those events is not appropriate. Many combinations of events are
> possible, such as keyboard plus mouse, and this precludes the kernel
> from providing a full interpretation. It would be wrong for it to even
> try. X is the proper place to implement auto-repeat for X.
The problem is that under heavy load the auto-repeat problem is real;
I've seen it as well, and it means that I've started to try to avoid
"make -j4" since that's a great way to trigger it.
- Ted
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:47:01 -0400
Theodore Tso <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:14:56PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
> > It should be said that X implements auto-repeat out of necessity. While
> > the kernel can report key down and up events, its further interpretation
> > of those events is not appropriate. Many combinations of events are
> > possible, such as keyboard plus mouse, and this precludes the kernel
> > from providing a full interpretation. It would be wrong for it to even
> > try. X is the proper place to implement auto-repeat for X.
>
> The problem is that under heavy load the auto-repeat problem is real;
> I've seen it as well, and it means that I've started to try to avoid
> "make -j4" since that's a great way to trigger it.
>
> - Ted
I reported a bug on this http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10163
It seemed to be related to group scheduler config option.
Theodore Tso wrote:
> The problem is that under heavy load the auto-repeat problem is real;
> I've seen it as well, and it means that I've started to try to avoid
> "make -j4" since that's a great way to trigger it.
>
I'm sure it does suck under heavy load, although I suppose you could
increase the start time. But I wonder if that is the problem this
time? Modern machines are so damned fast they actually take real effort
to load. Actually, "make -j4" doesn't sound particularly heavy.
There's huge disk i/o in a make. Plenty of scheduling opportunities.
Obviously I only know what everybody else here knows; but with so many
recent posts suggesting a scheduling fault has been introduced, I'm
expecting it to be that.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Newall wrote:
> > The problem is that under heavy load the auto-repeat problem is real;
> > I've seen it as well, and it means that I've started to try to avoid
> > "make -j4" since that's a great way to trigger it.
> I'm sure it does suck under heavy load, although I suppose you could
> increase the start time. But I wonder if that is the problem this
> time? Modern machines are so damned fast they actually take real effort
> to load. Actually, "make -j4" doesn't sound particularly heavy.
> There's huge disk i/o in a make. Plenty of scheduling opportunities.
> Obviously I only know what everybody else here knows; but with so many
> recent posts suggesting a scheduling fault has been introduced, I'm
> expecting it to be that.
The problem became much more apparent during early -rc phase of 2.6.25 for
those people that have CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED turned on. This clearly shows
that X are somehow unhappy with how kernel schedules them, but I don't
have idea how autorepeat is implemented inside X and what could be the
problem right now.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Am Mittwoch, 12. M?rz 2008 schrieb Jiri Kosina:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Newall wrote:
> > > The problem is that under heavy load the auto-repeat problem is real;
> > > I've seen it as well, and it means that I've started to try to avoid
> > > "make -j4" since that's a great way to trigger it.
> >
> > I'm sure it does suck under heavy load, although I suppose you could
> > increase the start time. But I wonder if that is the problem this
> > time? Modern machines are so damned fast they actually take real
> > effort to load. Actually, "make -j4" doesn't sound particularly heavy.
> > There's huge disk i/o in a make. Plenty of scheduling opportunities.
> > Obviously I only know what everybody else here knows; but with so many
> > recent posts suggesting a scheduling fault has been introduced, I'm
> > expecting it to be that.
>
> The problem became much more apparent during early -rc phase of 2.6.25
> for those people that have CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED turned on. This clearly
> shows that X are somehow unhappy with how kernel schedules them, but I
> don't have idea how autorepeat is implemented inside X and what could be
> the problem right now.
Just for the record, this problem started with openSUSE 10.2 for me, that's
a 2.6.18 thingy. I'm a heavy xterm user, where the autorepeat gets a life
of its own _occasionally_. I'm able to stop it by triggering a autorepeat
manually (typical antidot reaction).
Pete
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 22:22 +0100, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 12. März 2008 schrieb Jiri Kosina:
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Newall wrote:
> > > > The problem is that under heavy load the auto-repeat problem is real;
> > > > I've seen it as well, and it means that I've started to try to avoid
> > > > "make -j4" since that's a great way to trigger it.
> > >
> > > I'm sure it does suck under heavy load, although I suppose you could
> > > increase the start time. But I wonder if that is the problem this
> > > time? Modern machines are so damned fast they actually take real
> > > effort to load. Actually, "make -j4" doesn't sound particularly heavy.
> > > There's huge disk i/o in a make. Plenty of scheduling opportunities.
> > > Obviously I only know what everybody else here knows; but with so many
> > > recent posts suggesting a scheduling fault has been introduced, I'm
> > > expecting it to be that.
> >
> > The problem became much more apparent during early -rc phase of 2.6.25
> > for those people that have CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED turned on. This clearly
> > shows that X are somehow unhappy with how kernel schedules them, but I
> > don't have idea how autorepeat is implemented inside X and what could be
> > the problem right now.
>
> Just for the record, this problem started with openSUSE 10.2 for me, that's
> a 2.6.18 thingy. I'm a heavy xterm user, where the autorepeat gets a life
> of its own _occasionally_. I'm able to stop it by triggering a autorepeat
> manually (typical antidot reaction).
I've seen these key repeats for years. All I ever had to do was to make
X run heavily enough in the presence of another (hefty) load that it
hits the expired array and thereby takes a serious latency hit. I
always considered key repeats under load to be X's quaint way of saying
"HEEEEELP MEEEE" ;-)
-Mike
On Thursday 13 March 2008 07:42, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Just for the record, this problem started with openSUSE 10.2 for
> > me, that's a 2.6.18 thingy. I'm a heavy xterm user, where the
> > autorepeat gets a life of its own _occasionally_. I'm able to stop
> > it by triggering a autorepeat manually (typical antidot reaction).
>
> I've seen these key repeats for years. All I ever had to do was to
> make X run heavily enough in the presence of another (hefty) load
> that it hits the expired array and thereby takes a serious latency
> hit. I always considered key repeats under load to be X's quaint way
> of saying "HEEEEELP MEEEE" ;-)
I experience random repeats during heavy loads such as yum upgrade,
which triggers a huge swapout, in Fedora Core 7 with Fedora's
2.6.23.14-64 on amd64, Xorg 1.3... Using USB keyboard.
I'm not sure if it's the same issue or not, they don't repeat "forever"
for me, it just makes my speeellllliingggg llllooookkk
teerrriibbblle. Like that. Before this happens, letters usually stop
appearing on screen as I'm typing. I usually stop typing at that point,
since I know it will just become a mess.
I haven't encountered "forever"-stuck keys since about Fedora Core 5, I
don't remember kernel and X versions there, but I was using a PS/2
keyboard, and almost always it was something like ctrl-right that
stuck, which meant that the computer ended up switching virtual
desktops as fast as it could. Recovery involved bashing on keyboard,
trying ctrl-alt-backspace, ctrl-alt-f1 and so on until something
worked. It took many minutes to clear up, with everything trying to
redraw their windows a few hojillion times.
I hope this doesn't come back, I can cope with the bad spelling ;-)
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 11:48 +0200, Jan Knutar wrote:
> On Thursday 13 March 2008 07:42, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Just for the record, this problem started with openSUSE 10.2 for
> > > me, that's a 2.6.18 thingy. I'm a heavy xterm user, where the
> > > autorepeat gets a life of its own _occasionally_. I'm able to stop
> > > it by triggering a autorepeat manually (typical antidot reaction).
> >
> > I've seen these key repeats for years. All I ever had to do was to
> > make X run heavily enough in the presence of another (hefty) load
> > that it hits the expired array and thereby takes a serious latency
> > hit. I always considered key repeats under load to be X's quaint way
> > of saying "HEEEEELP MEEEE" ;-)
>
> I experience random repeats during heavy loads such as yum upgrade,
> which triggers a huge swapout, in Fedora Core 7 with Fedora's
> 2.6.23.14-64 on amd64, Xorg 1.3... Using USB keyboard.
Hm, dunno what all is in that kernel. Huge swapout with yum upgrade
shouldn't be happening I don't think, upgrades here certainly don't (I'm
using suses upgrade dohickey though...). I can only recommend trying
latest/greatest stock kernel.
> I'm not sure if it's the same issue or not, they don't repeat "forever"
> for me, it just makes my speeellllliingggg llllooookkk
> teerrriibbblle. Like that. Before this happens, letters usually stop
> appearing on screen as I'm typing. I usually stop typing at that point,
> since I know it will just become a mess.
Yes, that's the symptom I was refering to. If you see that under
reasonable CPU load, and _without_ major swapping going on, then I'd be
suspicious of scheduler trouble. Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu
for extended periods, and that seems to be what triggers the repeated
keys behavior. (I've never troubleshot it, so must say _seems_)
-Mike
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it's the same issue or not, they don't repeat
> > "forever" for me, it just makes my speeellllliingggg llllooookkk
> > teerrriibbblle. Like that. Before this happens, letters usually stop
> > appearing on screen as I'm typing. I usually stop typing at that
> > point, since I know it will just become a mess.
> Yes, that's the symptom I was refering to. If you see that under
> reasonable CPU load, and _without_ major swapping going on, then I'd be
> suspicious of scheduler trouble. Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu
> for extended periods, and that seems to be what triggers the repeated
> keys behavior. (I've never troubleshot it, so must say _seems_)
I have a hard time calling this a kernel scheduler trouble. My
understanding is that X are sometimes unhappy how kernel schedules them
when under load, and that triggers bug in X autorepeat code.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 12:28:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>[...]
> Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu for extended periods,
>[...]
So I would like to ask if swap letting X (and everything else
in my experience) out of the cpu for extended periods is
considered normal behaviour, in the sense that nobody is
trying to "fix" it (due to it being considered impossible
to fix)...?
Sorry for being off-topic, but I run a minimal Window Maker
desktop in a P4 3.0 GHz with 512 MB of RAM (around 140 MB
being used as per 'free'), and trying to load a 380 MB text
file in xjed editor makes my whole desktop quite unfair...
it takes tens of seconds to switch desktop, type things in
the terminal etc.
When xjed finishes loading the text file, everything comes
back to "fair" again.
Is there some law in the nature of computers which says
that when swapping everything else waits for swap to finish
its business? I hope not :-)
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 12:31 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure if it's the same issue or not, they don't repeat
> > > "forever" for me, it just makes my speeellllliingggg llllooookkk
> > > teerrriibbblle. Like that. Before this happens, letters usually stop
> > > appearing on screen as I'm typing. I usually stop typing at that
> > > point, since I know it will just become a mess.
> > Yes, that's the symptom I was refering to. If you see that under
> > reasonable CPU load, and _without_ major swapping going on, then I'd be
> > suspicious of scheduler trouble. Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu
> > for extended periods, and that seems to be what triggers the repeated
> > keys behavior. (I've never troubleshot it, so must say _seems_)
>
> I have a hard time calling this a kernel scheduler trouble. My
> understanding is that X are sometimes unhappy how kernel schedules them
> when under load, and that triggers bug in X autorepeat code.
Only if X is not getting CPU for long periods without swapping would I
become suspicious of the scheduler. We recently had exactly this
trouble with the fair groups load balancing code (now reverted) and CPU
bound loads. The bug is a symptom of latency woes, and the scheduler is
just one potential source worth watching. In the heavy swapping case,
it's unlikely to be scheduler trouble, and yes, the bug lies elsewhere.
-Mike
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> So I would like to ask if swap letting X (and everything else in my
> experience) out of the cpu for extended periods is considered normal
> behaviour, in the sense that nobody is trying to "fix" it (due to it
> being considered impossible to fix)...? Sorry for being off-topic, but I
> run a minimal Window Maker desktop in a P4 3.0 GHz with 512 MB of RAM
> (around 140 MB being used as per 'free'), and trying to load a 380 MB
> text file in xjed editor makes my whole desktop quite unfair... it takes
> tens of seconds to switch desktop, type things in the terminal etc. When
> xjed finishes loading the text file, everything comes back to "fair"
> again.
I propose you start a new thread about this with proper Subject, and CC
the scheduler maintainers.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 13:06:53 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>
> > So I would like to ask if swap letting X (and everything else in my
> > experience) out of the cpu for extended periods is considered normal
> > behaviour, in the sense that nobody is trying to "fix" it (due to it
> > being considered impossible to fix)...? Sorry for being off-topic, but I
> > run a minimal Window Maker desktop in a P4 3.0 GHz with 512 MB of RAM
> > (around 140 MB being used as per 'free'), and trying to load a 380 MB
> > text file in xjed editor makes my whole desktop quite unfair... it takes
> > tens of seconds to switch desktop, type things in the terminal etc. When
> > xjed finishes loading the text file, everything comes back to "fair"
> > again.
>
> I propose you start a new thread about this with proper Subject, and CC
> the scheduler maintainers.
Right. I am sorry!
But the thing I've learned from:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/28/249
makes me _not_ think the scheduler is guilty by itself.
Although it may appear so when first-looked upon.
Now I think that the problem I was facing that day was
also caused by swapping, which makes everything else
wait for it to finish.
So I am sorry for going off-topic here, but I couldn't
resist asking Galbraith about it.
Or I should just start a new thread like this? :-)
Petition for Ingo writing CFSS: Completely Fair Swap Scheduler
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 09:02 -0300, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 12:28:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >[...]
> > Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu for extended periods,
> >[...]
>
> So I would like to ask if swap letting X (and everything else
> in my experience) out of the cpu for extended periods is
> considered normal behaviour, in the sense that nobody is
> trying to "fix" it (due to it being considered impossible
> to fix)...?
No, it's not normal. I'd say the VM makes bad decisions if _moderate_
swapping behaves badly. Heavy swapping is another story. (I think Rik
is addressing some VM issues as we speak, so hopefully it will improve
soonish)
> Sorry for being off-topic, but I run a minimal Window Maker
> desktop in a P4 3.0 GHz with 512 MB of RAM (around 140 MB
> being used as per 'free'), and trying to load a 380 MB text
> file in xjed editor makes my whole desktop quite unfair...
> it takes tens of seconds to switch desktop, type things in
> the terminal etc.
>
> When xjed finishes loading the text file, everything comes
> back to "fair" again.
>
> Is there some law in the nature of computers which says
> that when swapping everything else waits for swap to finish
> its business? I hope not :-)
Me too. In the past, I tested swap heavily (and beat it into submission
when it misbehaved for me), but haven't tested swap performance since
becoming fairly ram-wealthy.
-Mike
My Dell X1 notebook had this problem HUGELY, back in about 2.6.18 or so.
Under *no* load to speak of, X would lose track of a "key up" event
and forever be stuck on "key down".
I could still use the mouse to start another X session simultaneously,
and in that alternate X things worked fine. So it was definitely an
X server process issue, not a system wide kernel thing.
And not a GNOME thing -- I use KDE exclusively.
Problem seems to have gone away since I put 2.6.23 onto that machine.
Newer kernels have broken suspend/resume there, so 2.6.23 is as high
as that one gets for now.
-ml
Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 12:28:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu for extended periods,
>> [...]
>>
>
> So I would like to ask if swap letting X (and everything else
> in my experience) out of the cpu for extended periods is
> considered normal behaviour, in the sense that nobody is
> trying to "fix" it (due to it being considered impossible
> to fix)...?
>
Yes, this is perfectly normal. A heavily swapping machine
will swap out parts of X.
Now, if X has a need for low-latency for keyboard handling,
then the X developers can use mlock to lock
the X keyboard service in memory, and make it a real-time
(or at least high priority) process too. This should
avoid the problem even with extreme swapping and/or
high cpu load.
> Sorry for being off-topic, but I run a minimal Window Maker
> desktop in a P4 3.0 GHz with 512 MB of RAM (around 140 MB
> being used as per 'free'), and trying to load a 380 MB text
> file in xjed editor makes my whole desktop quite unfair...
> it takes tens of seconds to switch desktop, type things in
> the terminal etc.
>
>
Seems ou use too much memory then. If xjed
wastes memory (by bringing the entire file into memory
in one go) then you'll get some swapping.
> When xjed finishes loading the text file, everything comes
> back to "fair" again.
>
> Is there some law in the nature of computers which says
> that when swapping everything else waits for swap to finish
> its business? I hope not :-)
>
No such law, but there are badly implemented software
around. If xjed is capable of delaying all X events while
loading the file, for example . . .
Helge Hafting
On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 15:18:10 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>> On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 12:28:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu for extended periods,
>>> [...]
>>>
>>
>> So I would like to ask if swap letting X (and everything else
>> in my experience) out of the cpu for extended periods is
>> considered normal behaviour, in the sense that nobody is
>> trying to "fix" it (due to it being considered impossible
>> to fix)...?
>>
> Yes, this is perfectly normal. A heavily swapping machine
> will swap out parts of X.
Right, but making the mistake of not being very precise
I would not say my desktop was "heavily swapping".
> Now, if X has a need for low-latency for keyboard handling,
> then the X developers can use mlock to lock
> the X keyboard service in memory, and make it a real-time
> (or at least high priority) process too. This should
> avoid the problem even with extreme swapping and/or
> high cpu load.
That would be a great thing for me. But why one wouldn't
want this behaviour to be default for a desktop? I mean
it should be like that already for a desktop experience.
I don't care if xjed takes longer to load the 380MB file
while swapping something as long as I don't feel my
desktop has come to an almost frozen state.
>> Sorry for being off-topic, but I run a minimal Window Maker
>> desktop in a P4 3.0 GHz with 512 MB of RAM (around 140 MB
>> being used as per 'free'), and trying to load a 380 MB text
>> file in xjed editor makes my whole desktop quite unfair...
>> it takes tens of seconds to switch desktop, type things in
>> the terminal etc.
>>
> Seems ou use too much memory then.
Well, Window Maker by itself uses around 5-10 MB of RAM.
The 140 MB figure was with firefox and thunderbird openned,
plus a few xterm + mrxvt.
> If xjed
> wastes memory (by bringing the entire file into memory
> in one go) then you'll get some swapping.
I tried with emacs and it simply said something like this:
"Are you sure you want to open this big file?"
I said 'yes' and emacs reffused with "Buffer memory excedded" or
something like that.
At least xjed openned the file :-)
Well, I must say that 'vi' could open the file almost
immediately under the same situation tough.
>> Is there some law in the nature of computers which says
>> that when swapping everything else waits for swap to finish its business?
>> I hope not :-)
>>
> No such law, but there are badly implemented software
> around. If xjed is capable of delaying all X events while
> loading the file, for example . . .
Yeah, xjed uses too much memory for this, but it would be
"harmless" if there were some mechanism to prevent swap (not
too heavy) from starving the whole system.
Why can't there be a swap scheduler for this situation?
(I am sorry for being ignorant about it, there probably
exists one).
If more than one process is using swap, they should use
it fairly. Put xjed's swap to rest for a moment, load the
swap due to X, and go forward.
My machine has 2 GB of swap area, both X and xjed swaps
could exist simultaneously without "having to wait to
long" for the other process business with swap to finish.
Please forgive me if I am being unfair about something,
I don't understand the internals of all this stuff.
That's why I first asked if having swap _not_ interfering
too much in other processes was impossible by some
computer principle (like disks are not fast enough).
But it appears that it is something related to the
scheduling of what to read/write from/to swap and when.
Of course that's just what I think, and I would like
to learn more from knowleadgeble lkml people. Maybe
in trying to explain things to me, some hacker may
find that something could be made better, or point
me to some /sys tunnable which makes my experience
better.
On Wed 2008-03-12 21:14:56, David Newall wrote:
> Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > Very probably this is due to broken way how X themselves implement
> > auto-repeat, instead of using kernel-provided auto-repeat functionality.
>
> It should be said that X implements auto-repeat out of necessity. While
> the kernel can report key down and up events, its further interpretation
> of those events is not appropriate. Many combinations of events are
> possible, such as keyboard plus mouse, and this precludes the kernel
> from providing a full interpretation. It would be wrong for it to even
> try. X is the proper place to implement auto-repeat for X.
No.
hw is proper place to implement autorepeat, and along with some
buffering, it has chance to work. Kernel is not real-time, and X are
definitely not real-time, while autorepeat is real-time operation.
It actually mostly works in ps/2 case. Buffer in hardware means that
pretty big interrupt delays can be tolerated without problems.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
With so many people suffering from this bug (for a long time), and so
many bright people here, why doesn't it get fixed?
...other operating systems don't suffer from this bug...
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed 2008-03-12 21:14:56, David Newall wrote:
> > Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > Very probably this is due to broken way how X themselves implement
> > > auto-repeat, instead of using kernel-provided auto-repeat functionality.
> >
> > It should be said that X implements auto-repeat out of necessity. While
> > the kernel can report key down and up events, its further interpretation
> > of those events is not appropriate. Many combinations of events are
> > possible, such as keyboard plus mouse, and this precludes the kernel
> > from providing a full interpretation. It would be wrong for it to even
> > try. X is the proper place to implement auto-repeat for X.
>
> No.
>
> hw is proper place to implement autorepeat, and along with some
> buffering, it has chance to work. Kernel is not real-time, and X are
> definitely not real-time, while autorepeat is real-time operation.
>
> It actually mostly works in ps/2 case. Buffer in hardware means that
> pretty big interrupt delays can be tolerated without problems.
>
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
>
On Thu 2008-03-13 18:56:04, Fred . wrote:
> With so many people suffering from this bug (for a long time), and so
> many bright people here, why doesn't it get fixed?
With so many trolls out here it is hard to get any real work done.
> ...other operating systems don't suffer from this bug...
X is broken here... feel free to fix it. You could also test
2.6.25-rc4, perhaps it is fixed there? Disable GROUP_SCHED.
Pavel
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 2008-03-12 21:14:56, David Newall wrote:
> > > Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > > Very probably this is due to broken way how X themselves implement
> > > > auto-repeat, instead of using kernel-provided auto-repeat functionality.
> > >
> > > It should be said that X implements auto-repeat out of necessity. While
> > > the kernel can report key down and up events, its further interpretation
> > > of those events is not appropriate. Many combinations of events are
> > > possible, such as keyboard plus mouse, and this precludes the kernel
> > > from providing a full interpretation. It would be wrong for it to even
> > > try. X is the proper place to implement auto-repeat for X.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > hw is proper place to implement autorepeat, and along with some
> > buffering, it has chance to work. Kernel is not real-time, and X are
> > definitely not real-time, while autorepeat is real-time operation.
> >
> > It actually mostly works in ps/2 case. Buffer in hardware means that
> > pretty big interrupt delays can be tolerated without problems.
> >
> > --
> > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> > (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
> >
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
pomozte zachranit klanovicky les: http://www.ujezdskystrom.info/
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> No.
> hw is proper place to implement autorepeat, and along with some
> buffering, it has chance to work. Kernel is not real-time, and X are
> definitely not real-time, while autorepeat is real-time operation.
> It actually mostly works in ps/2 case. Buffer in hardware means that
> pretty big interrupt delays can be tolerated without problems.
That's true. Unfortunately USB keyboards don't behave this way and there
is nothing we can do about that.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 15:18:10 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
>
>> Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 12:28:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu for extended periods,
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So I would like to ask if swap letting X (and everything else
>>> in my experience) out of the cpu for extended periods is
>>> considered normal behaviour, in the sense that nobody is
>>> trying to "fix" it (due to it being considered impossible
>>> to fix)...?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, this is perfectly normal. A heavily swapping machine
>> will swap out parts of X.
>>
>
> Right, but making the mistake of not being very precise
> I would not say my desktop was "heavily swapping".
>
>
>> Now, if X has a need for low-latency for keyboard handling,
>> then the X developers can use mlock to lock
>> the X keyboard service in memory, and make it a real-time
>> (or at least high priority) process too. This should
>> avoid the problem even with extreme swapping and/or
>> high cpu load.
>>
>
> That would be a great thing for me. But why one wouldn't
> want this behaviour to be default for a desktop? I mean
> it should be like that already for a desktop experience.
>
Normally, memory that is used all the time does not get
swapped out. If you use X while the machine is swapping,
you will normally see lots of little delays, not
one longe freeze. So this may have been something else.
This scenario seems to require only moderate swap. There
may be another explanation, that require more X knowledge
than I have:
Some windowing systems give apps the opportunity of
blocking the entire windowing system while doing stuff.
This is usually only used for "system modal dialogs" and
for very quick operations that need to stop all other user interaction.
I don't know to what extent this is possible in X, but if
it is, then the door is open for badly written apps to
to stupid things like load a 380M file while the user interface
is blocked. A well-designed app should do such lengthy jobs
without blocking everything else, so the user can do other stuff
while the machine works. Note that any io-operation _might_ be
lengthy - even a 50-byte file could reside on a network file
system on a server located in a different continent.
You may want to write to xjed developers, perhaps they
can do something about this. Like loading the
file in the background, perhaps.
[...]
> But it appears that it is something related to the
> scheduling of what to read/write from/to swap and when.
>
> Of course that's just what I think, and I would like
> to learn more from knowleadgeble lkml people. Maybe
> in trying to explain things to me, some hacker may
> find that something could be made better, or point
> me to some /sys tunnable which makes my experience
> better.
>
The interesting question is whether this is a swapping problem that can
be solved
by kernel fixing, or if it merely is a problem with the design of the X
server.
In the latter case you need to contact x.org developers instead. xjed
developers
can probably work around the problem too, although that would to be
unnecessary
if both the kernel and the x server were ideal.
A test you can do:
* Start up X as usual and log in
* Switch to the console (ctrl+alt+F2)
* Log in on the console, with the same user as you have in the X session.
* Give the command "export DISPLAY=:0" (without the quotes)
* Start xjed with the big file, from the console. You won't see it there,
it will show itself in the X session instead. Make sure you start it
in the
background, i.e.: "xjed bigfile & "
The machine should now start using the disk, loading the big file and
swap as usual.
Now try doing stuff in the console shell. Try various commands like
ls, view some text files in "vim", things like that.
Now, if your console session is just as blocked and sluggish as the X
session usually
gets - then it is a kernel/swapping problem.
If console usage is fine (or perhaps jerky uneven response but no
prolonged freeze)
then the kernel is ok and your problem is in the X server.
You can switch back to X after the test, usually something like ALT+F7.
Helge Hafting
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:14:26PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> hw is proper place to implement autorepeat, and along with some
> buffering, it has chance to work. Kernel is not real-time, and X are
> definitely not real-time, while autorepeat is real-time operation.
>
> It actually mostly works in ps/2 case. Buffer in hardware means that
> pretty big interrupt delays can be tolerated without problems.
So does the keyboard events generate something like this then:
KEY_x_DOWN
KEY_x_REPEAT
KEY_x_UP
If so then X certainly could get all the keyboard information I imagine
it needs from the kernel, but otherwise I am not sure how it could. A
repeated series of key down events are not enough since some keys you
don't want repeated you just want to know when the key is held down and
when it isn't.
I just hope someone figures it out since I would love to stop getting
duplicate characters whenever the system is under a bit of load in X.
--
Len Sorensen
On Fri 2008-03-14 10:21:29, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > No.
> > hw is proper place to implement autorepeat, and along with some
> > buffering, it has chance to work. Kernel is not real-time, and X are
> > definitely not real-time, while autorepeat is real-time operation.
> > It actually mostly works in ps/2 case. Buffer in hardware means that
> > pretty big interrupt delays can be tolerated without problems.
>
> That's true. Unfortunately USB keyboards don't behave this way and there
> is nothing we can do about that.
Maybe. (Could we get host controller to effectively timestamp usb
packets for us?)
..but that is not a problem here, because X are broken even on ps/2
keyboards. USB keyboards may be misdesigned, but they are not responsible
for problems we see.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
On Thu 2008-03-13 15:18:10, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> >On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 12:28:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith
> >wrote:
> >
> >>[...]
> >>Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu for extended
> >>periods,
> >>[...]
> >>
> >
> >So I would like to ask if swap letting X (and
> >everything else
> >in my experience) out of the cpu for extended periods is
> >considered normal behaviour, in the sense that nobody is
> >trying to "fix" it (due to it being considered
> >impossible
> >to fix)...?
> >
> Yes, this is perfectly normal. A heavily swapping machine
> will swap out parts of X.
>
> Now, if X has a need for low-latency for keyboard
> handling,
If X needs low-latency for keyboard, X is misdesigned.
Kernel already provides timestamped input events...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
On Fri 2008-03-14 09:30:19, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:14:26PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > hw is proper place to implement autorepeat, and along with some
> > buffering, it has chance to work. Kernel is not real-time, and X are
> > definitely not real-time, while autorepeat is real-time operation.
> >
> > It actually mostly works in ps/2 case. Buffer in hardware means that
> > pretty big interrupt delays can be tolerated without problems.
>
> So does the keyboard events generate something like this then:
>
> KEY_x_DOWN
> KEY_x_REPEAT
> KEY_x_UP
Yes, kernel<->user interface is something like that. Try evtest to see
it.
> If so then X certainly could get all the keyboard information I imagine
> it needs from the kernel, but otherwise I am not sure how it could.
> A
> repeated series of key down events are not enough since some keys you
> don't want repeated you just want to know when the key is held down and
> when it isn't.
PS/2 keyboard sends both ups and downs. "down down down up" means
autorepeat. It is not actually ambiguous.
BTW this is what I use to generate huge latencies and cause X
problems:
void
main(void)
{
int i;
iopl(3);
while (1) {
asm volatile("cli");
// for (i=0; i<20000000; i++)
for (i=0; i<1000000000; i++)
asm volatile("");
asm volatile("sti");
sleep(1);
}
}
...run it once per core.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Lennart Sorensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:14:26PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> hw is proper place to implement autorepeat, and along with some
>> buffering, it has chance to work. Kernel is not real-time, and X are
>> definitely not real-time, while autorepeat is real-time operation.
>>
>> It actually mostly works in ps/2 case. Buffer in hardware means that
>> pretty big interrupt delays can be tolerated without problems.
>
> So does the keyboard events generate something like this then:
>
> KEY_x_DOWN
> KEY_x_REPEAT
> KEY_x_UP
>
> If so then X certainly could get all the keyboard information I imagine
> it needs from the kernel, but otherwise I am not sure how it could. A
> repeated series of key down events are not enough since some keys you
> don't want repeated you just want to know when the key is held down and
> when it isn't.
You just need a timestamp for each event, and you can get a timestamp for
each event (as far as I read in this thread). Using the current time while
processing the event is plain stupid.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 07:24:08PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Maybe. (Could we get host controller to effectively timestamp usb
> packets for us?)
>
> ..but that is not a problem here, because X are broken even on ps/2
> keyboards. USB keyboards may be misdesigned, but they are not responsible
> for problems we see.
I don't own any USB keyboards (yet). My problems are on PS/2 only.
--
Len Sorensen
On Fri 14.Mar'08 at 12:02:14 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>> On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 15:18:10 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
>>
>>> Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu 13.Mar'08 at 12:28:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Swap can definitely keep X off the cpu for extended periods,
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>> So I would like to ask if swap letting X (and everything else
>>>> in my experience) out of the cpu for extended periods is
>>>> considered normal behaviour, in the sense that nobody is
>>>> trying to "fix" it (due to it being considered impossible
>>>> to fix)...?
>>>>
>>> Yes, this is perfectly normal. A heavily swapping machine
>>> will swap out parts of X.
>>>
>>
>> Right, but making the mistake of not being very precise
>> I would not say my desktop was "heavily swapping".
>>
>>> Now, if X has a need for low-latency for keyboard handling,
>>> then the X developers can use mlock to lock
>>> the X keyboard service in memory, and make it a real-time
>>> (or at least high priority) process too. This should
>>> avoid the problem even with extreme swapping and/or
>>> high cpu load.
>>>
>>
>> That would be a great thing for me. But why one wouldn't
>> want this behaviour to be default for a desktop? I mean
>> it should be like that already for a desktop experience.
>>
> Normally, memory that is used all the time does not get
> swapped out. If you use X while the machine is swapping,
> you will normally see lots of little delays, not
> one longe freeze. So this may have been something else.
>
> This scenario seems to require only moderate swap. There
> may be another explanation, that require more X knowledge
> than I have:
>
> Some windowing systems give apps the opportunity of
> blocking the entire windowing system while doing stuff.
> This is usually only used for "system modal dialogs" and
> for very quick operations that need to stop all other user interaction.
>
> I don't know to what extent this is possible in X, but if
> it is, then the door is open for badly written apps to
> to stupid things like load a 380M file while the user interface
> is blocked. A well-designed app should do such lengthy jobs
> without blocking everything else, so the user can do other stuff
> while the machine works. Note that any io-operation _might_ be
> lengthy - even a 50-byte file could reside on a network file
> system on a server located in a different continent.
>
> You may want to write to xjed developers, perhaps they
> can do something about this. Like loading the
> file in the background, perhaps.
> [...]
As I noted in another thread (unfortunately ignored so far),
sometimes xjed opens the file and my desktop is ok, as
responsive as I expect it to be.
So this isn't a xjed bug, even tough it could be better
and load parts of the file on demand (like vi appears
to do).
> The interesting question is whether this is a swapping problem that can be
> solved by kernel fixing, or if it merely is a problem with the design of the X
> server.
> In the latter case you need to contact x.org developers instead. xjed
> developers can probably work around the problem too, although that
> would to be unnecessary
> if both the kernel and the x server were ideal.
>
> A test you can do:
> * Start up X as usual and log in
> * Switch to the console (ctrl+alt+F2)
> * Log in on the console, with the same user as you have in the X session.
> * Give the command "export DISPLAY=:0" (without the quotes)
> * Start xjed with the big file, from the console. You won't see it there,
> it will show itself in the X session instead. Make sure you start it in
> the
> background, i.e.: "xjed bigfile & "
>
> The machine should now start using the disk, loading the big file and swap
> as usual.
> Now try doing stuff in the console shell. Try various commands like
> ls, view some text files in "vim", things like that.
>
> Now, if your console session is just as blocked and sluggish as the X
> session usually
> gets - then it is a kernel/swapping problem.
So it is a kernel problem!
I did this test a few times today, using today's git kernel and
it takes 3 seconds for 'ls' to appear in the screen after typing,
and 10 seconds (I checked with the clock) to be executed.
Today I think I've found a reliable way to reproduce this
bad behaviour (I've got it 5 times from 5 attempts so far).
It is independent of elevator={anticipatory, cfq, deadline},
I could get the bad results with all of them.
I just boot the machine, mount the swap partition manually (it
looks like a Mandriva Cooker bug) and start 'xjed bigfile.txt &'
in the terminal (it also happens outside of X).
It takes more than 15 minutes to load the 380MB file when I hit
the problem. It takes like 10 minutes to finish Ingo's cfs-debug
script (I can see it stop _after_ the file is loaded).
I could verify that swap usage goes to 400 MB out of 2 GB, and when
I start the test this is what I have:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 515496 148628 366868 0 9916 80612
-/+ buffers/cache: 58100 457396
Swap: 2144636 0 2144636
In one of the tests I started 'vmstat 1 >> vmstat_log3.txt' a few seconds
before starting xjed. And this is what I got (notice that it has 400 lines,
showing that it took 400 seconds to load the file, but in fact it was
even more. Time seems to be distorted during this test)
http://www.ift.unesp.br/users/crmafra/vmstat_log3.txt
I could also get some info from latencytop during the test, but
it was very difficult because the terminal screen took ages to
refresh. This is worst log I could get manually:
Cause Maximum Percentage
get_request_wait __make_request generic_make_reque2201.3 msec 8.4 %
get_request_wait __make_request generic_make_reque1877.3 msec 20.5 %
sync_page __lock_page handle_mm_fault do_page_faul945.5 msec 0.4 %
sync_page __lock_page find_lock_page filemap_fault860.3 msec 17.2 %
sync_page __lock_page handle_mm_fault do_page_faul828.3 msec 0.9 %
sync_page __lock_page handle_mm_fault do_page_faul817.9 msec 21.7 %
sync_buffer __wait_on_buffer __bread ext3_get_bran752.6 msec 2.8 %
get_request_wait __make_request generic_make_reque726.6 msec 0.4 %
sync_page __lock_page find_lock_page filemap_fault617.0 msec 0.3 %
inary search_binary_handler do_execve
Process dhclient-script (3934)
get_request_wait __make_request generic_make_reque1562.5 msec 36.8 %ge shrink_page_list shrink_inactive_list shri
sync_page __lock_page find_lock_page filemap_fault473.4 msec 28.2 %lt do_page_fault error_code
sync_page __lock_page handle_mm_fault do_page_faul405.9 msec 13.3 %
Scheduler: waiting for cpu 120.1 msec 19.0 %
congestion_wait try_to_free_pages __alloc_pages __ 99.7 msec 2.5 %o_page_cache_readahead filemap_fault __do_faul
congestion_wait __alloc_pages __do_page_cache_read 15.9 msec 0.2 %head filemap_fault __do_fault handle_mm_fault
do_page_fault error_code
So I think I am definitely hitting some kernel bug.
If someone in this list becomes interested in this problem, I will
be happy to help with any testing necessary.
I can live with this problem (I don't even need to read that
file anymore). But the bug exists.
Another thing I want to mention is about the CFS debug script
results. For example:
[mafra@localhost:~]$ grep se.wait_max cfs-debug-info-2008.03.15-17.22.51
se.wait_max : 320.220900
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 308.730029
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 216.652542
se.wait_max : 412.076086
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 100.015586
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 149.990226
se.wait_max : 15.718068
se.wait_max : 49.988316
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 29.287277
se.wait_max : 62.785571
se.wait_max : 602.883709
se.wait_max : 10.646829
se.wait_max : 0.008188
se.wait_max : 19.871847
se.wait_max : 19.740026
se.wait_max : 0.027021
se.wait_max : 19.817248
se.wait_max : 0.026897
se.wait_max : 0.640153
se.wait_max : 0.808060
se.wait_max : 0.389118
se.wait_max : 0.027009
se.wait_max : 0.083961
se.wait_max : 3.264754
se.wait_max : 0.564208
se.wait_max : 0.092138
se.wait_max : 0.991528
se.wait_max : 3.058615
se.wait_max : 0.026908
se.wait_max : 11.891953
se.wait_max : 10.954652
se.wait_max : 1.115334
se.wait_max : 1.226744
se.wait_max : 10.947289
se.wait_max : 11.980765
se.wait_max : 1.349930
se.wait_max : 12.950094
se.wait_max : 1.438758
se.wait_max : 12.995926
se.wait_max : 1.523568
se.wait_max : 13.067781
se.wait_max : 15.039010
se.wait_max : 1.646566
se.wait_max : 15.134557
se.wait_max : 1.757942
se.wait_max : 1.830261
se.wait_max : 15.265369
se.wait_max : 1.921997
se.wait_max : 15.192441
se.wait_max : 2.097341
se.wait_max : 0.243086
se.wait_max : 2.028549
se.wait_max : 2.169289
se.wait_max : 2.280411
se.wait_max : 2.356268
se.wait_max : 1.719666
se.wait_max : 2.451732
se.wait_max : 2.535262
se.wait_max : 1.846795
se.wait_max : 2.489097
se.wait_max : 2.550678
se.wait_max : 2.816960
se.wait_max : 2.728959
se.wait_max : 2.068324
se.wait_max : 2.912895
se.wait_max : 3.072540
se.wait_max : 0.952594
se.wait_max : 3.334903
se.wait_max : 3.160131
se.wait_max : 3.399756
se.wait_max : 11.581309
se.wait_max : 3.684554
se.wait_max : 278.279914
se.wait_max : 23.601522
se.wait_max : 98.543577
se.wait_max : 259.453483
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 127.155292
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 494.934718
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 20.022997
se.wait_max : 40.072908
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 27.785589
se.wait_max : 45.076186
se.wait_max : 33.335700
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 121.580585
se.wait_max : 6.825214
se.wait_max : 18.178228
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 364.938378
se.wait_max : 186.608743
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 191.874571
se.wait_max : 12.138841
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 365.831692
se.wait_max : 196.069929
se.wait_max : 186.608743
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 235.761630
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 78.088419
se.wait_max : 33.871607
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 26.201039
se.wait_max : 476.629993
se.wait_max : 587.639944
se.wait_max : 184.918777
se.wait_max : 334.997228
se.wait_max : 216.701937
se.wait_max : 0.909482
se.wait_max : 134.804841
se.wait_max : 114.442959
se.wait_max : 100.189898
se.wait_max : 100.155489
se.wait_max : 134.945855
se.wait_max : 114.634475
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 542.107819
se.wait_max : 40.222426
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 16.558527
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 99.997595
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 56.632829
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 0.000000
se.wait_max : 80.577203
This is the worst register I have, it was obtained after
clearing the CFS stats. But most of the logs I have
from this script are fine (only a few se.wait_max over
40 msecs, with the worst being around 120 or so).
On Friday 14 March 2008 13:02, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Normally, memory that is used all the time does not get
> swapped out. If you use X while the machine is swapping,
> you will normally see lots of little delays, not
> one longe freeze. So this may have been something else.
When it happens to me, the pointer usually updates only about 1 - 2
times per second, which seems to be enough to cause keyboard repeat
problems as well.
If the swapfile usage is 0 when a big swapout takes place, I usually see
about 6M/sec pushed to disc and rarely pointer or keyboard anomalies.
After running a few more days though, swapping rates drop to 1.3M per
sec or worse. The delays in X get bigger too, sometimes several seconds
long. I guess if the kernel swaps out a piece of X that X needs, then
it takes much much longer to get it back at that low swap rate, and it
ends up manifesting itself as pointer jitter and keyboard repeat
problems.
The pointer stutter can be considered acceptable, I guess, atleast there
the pointer (eventually) jumps to where I expect it to go based on how
much I move the mouse...
I have to wonder what X is doing to break the keyboard...