Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Subject: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:25:53 +0400
Message-ID: <B41635854730A14CA71C92B36EC22AAC3AD921@mssmsx411>
Thread-Topic: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait
Thread-Index: AcbkUOY9O9GDFATzR1+0EiAFS+qL0w==
From: "Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com>
To: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 940
Lines: 25

A benchmark
             'postal -p 16 localhost list_of_1000_users'
56% of run time waits for flock_lock_file_wait;
Vmstat reports that 66% cpu is idle and  vmstat bi+bo=3600 (far from
max).
Postfix server with FD_SETSIZE=2048 was used.
Similar results got for sendmail. 
Wchan is counted by
            while :; do
                        ps -o user,wchan=WIDE-WCHAN-COLUMN,comm;
sleep 1;
           done | awk '/ postfix /{a[$2]++}END{for (i in a) print
a[i]"\t"i}'
If ext2 fs is used the Postal throughput is twice more and bi+bo by 50%
less while  flock_lock_file_wait 60% still.

Is flock_lock_file_wait considered as a performance limiting waiting for
similar applications in smp?

Leonid
-
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/