From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3EEBF2C1.4050101@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:14:57 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: 2.5.70-mm9 References: <20030613013337.1a6789d9.akpm@digeo.com> <3EEAD41B.2090709@us.ibm.com> <20030614010139.2f0f1348.akpm@digeo.com> <1055637690.1396.15.camel@w-ming2.beaverton.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1055637690.1396.15.camel@w-ming2.beaverton.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mingming Cao Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Mingming Cao wrote: >On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 01:01, Andrew Morton wrote: > > >>Was elevator=deadline observed to fail in earlier kernels? If not then it >>may be an anticipatory scheduler bug. It certainly had all the appearances >>of that. >> >Yes, with elevator=deadline the many fsx tests failed on 2.5.70-mm5. > > >>So once you're really sure that elevator=deadline isn't going to fail, >>could you please test elevator=as? >> >> >Ok, the deadline test was run for 10 hours then I stopped it (for the >elevator=as test). > >But the test on elevator=as (2.5.70-mm9 kernel) still failed, same >problem. Some fsx tests are sleeping on io_schedule(). > So by failed, you just mean stuck in io_schedule? Are you sure they are permanently stuck there? Is any progress being made? I have tried this test, and often some or most of the processes wait in io_schedule for a while, but do get woken. -- 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/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org