From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from digeo-nav01.digeo.com (digeo-nav01.digeo.com [192.168.1.233]) by packet.digeo.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA01272 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:33:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:33:43 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.5.59-mm5 Message-Id: <20030125143343.2c505c93.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <200301251534.32447.tomlins@cam.org> References: <20030123195044.47c51d39.akpm@digeo.com> <200301251232.15866.tomlins@cam.org> <20030125094141.1e2b1de3.akpm@digeo.com> <200301251534.32447.tomlins@cam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ed Tomlinson Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Oleg Drokin List-ID: Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > On January 25, 2003 12:41 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > I am seeing a strange problem with mm5. This occurs both with and > > > without the anticipatory scheduler changes. What happens is I see very > > > high system times and X responds very very slowly. I first noticed this > > > when switching between folders in kmail and have seen it rebuilding db > > > files for squidguard. Here is what happened during the db rebuild (no > > > anticipatory ioscheduler): > > > > Could you please try reverting the reiserfs changes? > > > > http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/2.5/2.5.59/2.5.59-mm5/broken-out/ > >reiserfs-readpages.patch > > > > and > > > > http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/2.5/2.5.59/2.5.59-mm5/broken-out/ > >reiserfs_file_write.patch > > Reverting reiserfs_file_write.patch seems to cure the interactivity problems. > I still see the high system times but they in themselves are not a problem. > Reverting the second patch does not change the situation. I am currently > running with reiserfs_file_write.patch removed - so far so good. > Well, high system time _is_ a problem, isn't it? Do you always see that? Or perhaps userspace monitoring tools are confusing I/O wait with CPU busyness. Does a revert of http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/2.5/2.5.59/2.5.59-mm5/broken-out/buffer-io-accounting.patch make the numbers look different? If so, then it's a procps bug... WRT the excessive copy_foo_user() times: I shall forward your initial email to Oleg, thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/