Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264368AbUDSLyi (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:54:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264376AbUDSLyi (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:54:38 -0400 Received: from elma.elma.fi ([192.89.233.77]:51937 "EHLO elma.elma.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264368AbUDSLyc (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:54:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:54:30 +0300 (EETDST) From: Antti Lankila To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: re: elevator=as related to my performance issues Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3310 Lines: 68 I'm sorry that I can't post this mail in reply to the thread, this is because I'm not subscribed, so I can't reply. Here's the news. Firstly, Nick's proposed change of setting antic_expiry to zero does not appear to change anything for me. My subjective experience of the behaviour is that it's just as bad as before, no qualitative changes that I can see. I'm testing like this: I boot the Linux into X, and run gkrellm to show me cpu use and system cpu use, and a chart of the IDE disks involved (right now just 1 disk on the nforce2 system). Then I just shake the mouse and watch the pointer. Pretty scientific, eh? First I admit an egg on my face: I noticed that I can get mouse stalls can occur with the deadline scheduler as well :-( they simply aren't so pronounced, so I guess that proves that the AS is not at fault. The scheduler simply puts through different kind of IO load, and the deadline profile just seems to hide the issue better, but not solve it, right? In case of the deadline scheduler, the mouse may stall during the "putc()" write test and with the "3 thread seek" test. I also once observed it to stop during the "Writing intelligently" part of the test after the putc() write. All in all it's a smoother experience, and updatedb doesn't seem to cause any issues at all. What I see in gkrellm during the putc() write test is interesting. The mouse stall is always preceded by disk write activity. First there's just high cpu load as some buffers get filled, then flushing to disk kicks into action and usually it goes on for about 2 seconds, and then the mouse stops, usually only to resume when the disk activity surge stops. The deadline scheduler produces longer write periods than anticipatory in my case, which seems to flush more often. Thus anticipatory shows itself off better in this case. In the other parts, such as rewriting or writing intelligently, it's bad though, while the deadline seems to take that load with much fewer issues. Aniticipatory scheduler shows the worst of itself during the "3 thread seek" test part of bonnie, in my opinion. The mouse is stalled only for brief periods but it stops moving (and resumes about every second), and even when moving it tends to be jerky. It's weird, too, the disk shows only small throughput, and CPU usage would appear to be near zero, at few percent. So by my accounts the system isn't doing much, just seeking furiously. Yet, it appears as if this IDE work caused an absolutely huge drain on system resources. (I do believe that system _throughput_ may be unimpaired, just that what I do as an user with my mouse is ignored by the OS.) Here's the system details: - 512 MB (dual-channel) DDR 400 MHz - XP 2400+ - Barracuda 7200.7 drive - 2.6.5 kernel - geforce4 and nvidia drivers Hdparm says multcount=16, io-support=1 (32-bit), unmaskirq=1, using_dma=1, readahead=256. Acoustic management is set to 128 (which should impact seek performance quite a bit). There should be no custom tuning on vm parameters. That readahead appears to be set by the kernel. Antti - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/