linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Leigh Brown" <leigh@solinno.co.uk>
To: riel@conectiva.com.br
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] iowait statistics
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 10:49:23 +0100 (BST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51039.193.133.92.239.1021542563.squirrel@lbbrown.homeip.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0205151310130.9490-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>

Yesterday, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
>
>> I think two patches for same kernel piece at the same time is
>> too many. Go ahead and code this if you want.
>
> OK, here it is.   Changes against yesterday's patch:
>
> 1) make sure idle time can never go backwards by incrementing
>   the idle time in the timer interrupt too (surely we can
>   take this overhead if we're idle anyway ;))
>
> 2) get_request_wait also raises nr_iowait_tasks (thanks akpm)
>
> This patch is against the latest 2.5 kernel from bk and
> pretty much untested. If you have the time, please test
> it and let me know if it works.

First off, let me say that I've wanted this functionality for a long
time.  I do quite a lot of AIX Systems Admin and it's one of those
metrics that doesn't really give you any concrete data but does help
to get an idea on what the system's doing.

I've tried this patch against Red Hat's 2.4.18 kernel on my laptop, and
patched top to display the results.  It certainly seems to be working
correctly running a few little contrived tests.

The only little issue I have is that I tried the previous patch and it
accounted raw I/O (using /dev/raw/raw*) as system time rather than wait
time.  The new version seems better in this regard but I'm not sure if
it is 100% correct.  If I run a "dd if=/dev/hdc of=/dev/null bs=2048"
a typical result would be:

CPU states: 0.5% user,  3.5% system,  0.0% nice,  0.0% idle, 95.8% wait

which is what I'd expect based on my experience.    However, Doing a
"raw /dev/raw/raw1 /dev/hdc" followed by a "dd if=/dev/raw/raw1 ..."
gives this sort of result:

CPU states: 0.3% user,  8.9% system,  0.0% nice, 77.2% idle, 13.3% wait

I'm not sure if that can be explained by the way the raw I/O stuff works,
or because I'm running it against 2.4.  Anyway, overall it's looking good.

Cheers,

Leigh.



--
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/

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-05-16  9:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-05-14  1:19 Rik van Riel
2002-05-14  2:18 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-14 12:30   ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 17:02   ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-16  7:41     ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-14 15:39 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-14 16:36   ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-14 16:54     ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 17:17       ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 14:03         ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 20:17           ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 16:13             ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 16:21               ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 17:00               ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 18:16                 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-05-15 18:30                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 18:33                   ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 18:46                     ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 19:00                       ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-16 11:42                         ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-16  9:49               ` Leigh Brown [this message]
2002-05-16 14:51                 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-16 16:44                   ` Leigh Brown
2002-05-17  8:02                     ` Jens Axboe
2002-05-16 11:14               ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 15:15         ` Bill Davidsen
2002-05-16 10:58           ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-14 18:19     ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-05-15  1:31 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-05-15  1:41   ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 14:39     ` Bill Davidsen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=51039.193.133.92.239.1021542563.squirrel@lbbrown.homeip.net \
    --to=leigh@solinno.co.uk \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox