Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755034AbZIUIGG (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:06:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754912AbZIUIGE (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:06:04 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:36138 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753069AbZIUIGD (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:06:03 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19m2xACcOpm3zRxkkuMTRndpm0vSwbHWCE/GM4lH9 B+W8moAF01d4HN Subject: Re: Poor desktop responsiveness with background I/O-operations From: Mike Galbraith To: Ulrich Lukas Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <4AB72FDC.5090403@datenparkplatz.de> References: <4AB59CBB.8090907@datenparkplatz.de> <20090920080728.73bfe2a1@infradead.org> <4AB5ECD0.7010903@datenparkplatz.de> <1253475521.9224.43.camel@marge.simson.net> <4AB6C73C.1030004@gmail.com> <1253507034.23414.90.camel@marge.simson.net> <4AB72FDC.5090403@datenparkplatz.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:06:04 +0200 Message-Id: <1253520364.25640.57.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.59 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1481 Lines: 38 On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 09:48 +0200, Ulrich Lukas wrote: > Hi and thanks for your reply! Hi. > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > nicing a shell or the dd should (and does) help a LOT. > > If this is the only way to influence this, maybe the default settings > for the niceness of interactive and non-interactive tasks are not the > best choice. (Maybe a distribution problem in this case) There is no knowledge in the CPU nor IO scheduler wrt interactive vs non-interactive. I've tinkered many times with a SCHED_INTERACTIVE class, but it's not at all an easy problem, so keeps landing on the trash heap. I could ramble on _for ever_ about that subject, but it's thankfully irrelevant to this thread ;-) > > reads are sync, more heavily affected by seek latency than writes. > > But how does this explain the seconds-long delays? Seek latencies are cumulative is my (wild arsed) theory. > If an interactive process causes a lot of seeks because of reads/writes > which "are sync", I see how this can greatly slow down otherwise > pipelined write operations, but the other way around? If you seek between tiny reads, the more little reads you do, the more seeks hurt. Readahead is supposed to help, but.. the pain is there. -Mike -- 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/