Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755988AbYACI0L (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 03:26:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753563AbYACIZ6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 03:25:58 -0500 Received: from enyo.dsw2k3.info ([195.71.86.239]:42525 "EHLO enyo.dsw2k3.info" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753080AbYACIZ5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 03:25:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:25:45 +0100 From: Matthias Schniedermeyer To: Maxim Levitsky Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why is deleting (or reading) files not counted as IO-Wait in top? Message-ID: <20080103082545.GA6516@citd.de> References: <20080102193503.GA31414@citd.de> <200801030216.44446.maximlevitsky@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801030216.44446.maximlevitsky@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1975 Lines: 49 On 03.01.2008 02:16, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Wednesday, 2 January 2008 21:35:03 Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > Hi > > > > > > Currently i'm deleting about 500.000 files on a XFS-filesystem which > > takes a few minutes, as i had a top open i saw that 'wa' is shown as > > 0.0% (Nothing else running currently) and everything except 'id' is near > > the bottom too. Kernel is 2.6.23.11. > > > > So, as 'rm -rf' is essentially a IO (or seek, to be more correct)-bound > > task, shouldn't that count as "Waiting for IO"? > > > > The man-page of top says: > > 'Amount of time the CPU has been waiting for I/O to complete.' > > > > But AFAICT wa only seams to be (ac)counted for writing and not for > > reading. I come to that conclusion because, when i fire 'sync' i can see > > some percent wa for a few seconds. > > The IOWAIT time is the IDLE time that was spent waiting > for I/O. (meaning that there were no tasks running, but some were waiting on I/O) > > Thus if you have another task that is not I/O bound, it can run in that time, > and ideally, you shouldn't notice any I/O slowdown, but the iowait time will decrease. > > It wasn't the case before CFS introduction. I did few tests that showed almost 50% slowdown > when running another task in that iowait time. > It is not longer a problem with CFS. I can understand that, but in my case nothing else was running, so i would expect about 46%-50% wa (Dual Core Processor). Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. -- 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/