Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932159AbWHKLlE (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:41:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932173AbWHKLlE (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:41:04 -0400 Received: from smtprelay05.ispgateway.de ([80.67.18.43]:55977 "EHLO smtprelay05.ispgateway.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932159AbWHKLlC (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:41:02 -0400 From: Matthias Dahl To: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: sluggish system responsiveness under higher IO load Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:40:41 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200608061200.37701.mlkernel@mortal-soul.de> <20060808190241.GB11829@suse.de> <20060810122853.GS11829@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20060810122853.GS11829@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200608111340.41247.mlkernel@mortal-soul.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 738 Lines: 17 On Thursday 10 August 2006 14:28, Jens Axboe wrote: > - Did 2.6.16 work well for you? AFAICT 2.6.17 behaved more sluggish but this is my subjective observation. The problem itself exists for quite some time now. (prior to 2.6.16) I cannot even tell if it ever worked fine. :-( > - Does disabling preemtion (CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y) help? Sorry for my late response btw. I will do the necessary tests (including the blktrace you asked for) this weekend and report back as soon as possible. - 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/