From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] iowait statistics
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:00:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020515170025.GF27957@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200205151514.g4FFEmY13920@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0205151310130.9490-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
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.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:13:33PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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.
Boots compiles and runs on an 4-way physical HT box. I didn't wake
the evil twins to cut down on the number of variables so it stayed
4-way despite the ability to go 8-way.
Sliding window of 120 seconds, sampled every 15 seconds, under a
repetitive kernel compile load:
Wed May 15 09:56:37 PDT 2002
cpu 60701 0 5137 203545 9327
cpu0 15048 0 1566 50868 2298
cpu1 15257 0 1176 50818 2392
cpu2 15248 0 1346 50802 2247
cpu3 15148 0 1049 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:56:52 PDT 2002
cpu 66304 0 5543 203545 9327
cpu0 16460 0 1656 50868 2298
cpu1 16606 0 1330 50818 2392
cpu2 16655 0 1441 50802 2247
cpu3 16583 0 1116 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:57:07 PDT 2002
cpu 71877 0 5980 203545 9327
cpu0 17849 0 1769 50868 2298
cpu1 17972 0 1466 50818 2392
cpu2 18060 0 1539 50802 2247
cpu3 17996 0 1206 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:57:22 PDT 2002
cpu 77446 0 6420 203545 9327
cpu0 19269 0 1852 50868 2298
cpu1 19328 0 1612 50818 2392
cpu2 19448 0 1653 50802 2247
cpu3 19401 0 1303 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:57:37 PDT 2002
cpu 83031 0 6843 203545 9327
cpu0 20699 0 1924 50868 2298
cpu1 20704 0 1738 50818 2392
cpu2 20846 0 1757 50802 2247
cpu3 20782 0 1424 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:57:52 PDT 2002
cpu 87432 0 7216 204779 9328
cpu0 21788 0 2000 51205 2298
cpu1 21737 0 1845 51180 2393
cpu2 21871 0 1806 51230 2247
cpu3 22036 0 1565 51164 2390
Wed May 15 09:58:07 PDT 2002
cpu 93003 0 7653 204779 9328
cpu0 23178 0 2112 51205 2298
cpu1 23134 0 1950 51180 2393
cpu2 23281 0 1898 51230 2247
cpu3 23410 0 1693 51164 2390
Wed May 15 09:58:22 PDT 2002
cpu 98583 0 8082 204779 9328
cpu0 24538 0 2254 51205 2298
cpu1 24521 0 2065 51180 2393
cpu2 24704 0 1978 51230 2247
cpu3 24820 0 1785 51164 2390
It looks very constant, not sure if it should be otherwise.
Cheers,
Bill
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] iowait statistics
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:00:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020515170025.GF27957@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0205151310130.9490-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
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.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:13:33PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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.
Boots compiles and runs on an 4-way physical HT box. I didn't wake
the evil twins to cut down on the number of variables so it stayed
4-way despite the ability to go 8-way.
Sliding window of 120 seconds, sampled every 15 seconds, under a
repetitive kernel compile load:
Wed May 15 09:56:37 PDT 2002
cpu 60701 0 5137 203545 9327
cpu0 15048 0 1566 50868 2298
cpu1 15257 0 1176 50818 2392
cpu2 15248 0 1346 50802 2247
cpu3 15148 0 1049 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:56:52 PDT 2002
cpu 66304 0 5543 203545 9327
cpu0 16460 0 1656 50868 2298
cpu1 16606 0 1330 50818 2392
cpu2 16655 0 1441 50802 2247
cpu3 16583 0 1116 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:57:07 PDT 2002
cpu 71877 0 5980 203545 9327
cpu0 17849 0 1769 50868 2298
cpu1 17972 0 1466 50818 2392
cpu2 18060 0 1539 50802 2247
cpu3 17996 0 1206 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:57:22 PDT 2002
cpu 77446 0 6420 203545 9327
cpu0 19269 0 1852 50868 2298
cpu1 19328 0 1612 50818 2392
cpu2 19448 0 1653 50802 2247
cpu3 19401 0 1303 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:57:37 PDT 2002
cpu 83031 0 6843 203545 9327
cpu0 20699 0 1924 50868 2298
cpu1 20704 0 1738 50818 2392
cpu2 20846 0 1757 50802 2247
cpu3 20782 0 1424 51057 2390
Wed May 15 09:57:52 PDT 2002
cpu 87432 0 7216 204779 9328
cpu0 21788 0 2000 51205 2298
cpu1 21737 0 1845 51180 2393
cpu2 21871 0 1806 51230 2247
cpu3 22036 0 1565 51164 2390
Wed May 15 09:58:07 PDT 2002
cpu 93003 0 7653 204779 9328
cpu0 23178 0 2112 51205 2298
cpu1 23134 0 1950 51180 2393
cpu2 23281 0 1898 51230 2247
cpu3 23410 0 1693 51164 2390
Wed May 15 09:58:22 PDT 2002
cpu 98583 0 8082 204779 9328
cpu0 24538 0 2254 51205 2298
cpu1 24521 0 2065 51180 2393
cpu2 24704 0 1978 51230 2247
cpu3 24820 0 1785 51164 2390
It looks very constant, not sure if it should be otherwise.
Cheers,
Bill
--
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/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-15 17:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-14 1:19 [RFC][PATCH] iowait statistics Rik van Riel
2002-05-14 1:19 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-14 2:18 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-14 2:18 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-14 12:30 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-14 12:30 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 17:02 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 17:02 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-16 7:41 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-16 7:41 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-16 14:04 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-14 15:39 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-14 15:39 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-14 16:36 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-14 16:36 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-14 16:54 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-14 16:54 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 17:17 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 17:17 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 14:03 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 14:03 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 20:17 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 20:17 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 16:13 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 16:13 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 16:21 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 16:21 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 17:00 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2002-05-15 17:00 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 18:16 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-05-15 18:16 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-05-15 18:30 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 18:30 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 18:33 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 18:33 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 18:46 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 18:46 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-15 19:00 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-15 19:00 ` Rik van Riel
2002-05-16 11:42 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-16 11:42 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-16 9:49 ` Leigh Brown
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
2002-05-16 11:14 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 15:15 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-05-15 15:15 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-05-16 10:58 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-16 10:58 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-14 18:19 ` Martin J. Bligh
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 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=20020515170025.GF27957@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.