Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:11:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:10:53 -0500 Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.122]:53237 "EHLO pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:10:33 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Randy Hron To: Ed Sweetman Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.19-pre5 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:11:17 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] In-Reply-To: <20020330135333.A16794@rushmore> <1017605142.641.119.camel@psuedomode> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > the problem. You said it makes the box look like it's halted in your > tests, I saw no such thing. I haven't directly observed any box tightening up for more than a few seconds. There have been a few reports on lkml of things like that happening. Based on tiotest results, I can see if the I/O request you are waiting for is one of those few that isn't serviced for dozens or hundreds of seconds, you'll be annoyed. The number of requests that takes over 10 seconds is often just 3 in 10,000. There may be only 1 request in 500,000 that takes 500 seconds to service. The chance of your interactive i/o being the "longest" is small, unless your interactive work is producing enough I/O to compete with tiotest. What I like about read_latency2 is that most latencies are less, and the highest latency is much less. > Heh, maybe i'm confused on your definition of the wall. Sorry if that wasn't clear. "The wall" is the point where the highest latency in the test skyrockets. For instance, in recent ac kernels, the _highest_ latency for sequential reads is less than 5 seconds at 64 threads in all the ac's I've tested. At 128 threads, the _lowest_ max latency figure is 200 seconds. So, I used the "wall" term for 128 in the ac series. Similarly, in the Marcelo tree, 1.7 seconds is the _highest_ latency with 16 threads in all the mainline kernels I've tested. At 32 threads, 137 seconds is the _lowest_ maximum latency. So I used the idea "wall = 32 threads" for 2.4 mainline. The actual number of seconds will vary depending on the hardware. I've observed the "skyrocketing" max latency or "wall" phenomemon on several boxes though. The max latency growth before and after "the wall" is similar as threads increase. That is max latency grows slowly, then jumps enormously, then grows gradually again. A little picture, not to scale: m x a x x x * l a t e n c y s e q # r e ........ the wall ...................... a # d # * s x * x*# *# threads 8 16 32 64 128 * = ac x = mainline # = read_latency2 The "not to scale" means the distance between points above and below "the wall" is actually much greater. If you feel like it, perhaps you could test ac with preempt and 8 16 32 64 128 256 threads and see if exhibits a wall pattern or not. Thanks for your interest. - 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/