From: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>
To: akpm@digeo.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 12:40:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030302114035.22346.qmail@linuxmail.org> (raw)
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 02:40:24 -0800
To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>
Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions
> "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Does basic 2.5.63 do the same thing? Do you have a feel
> > > for when it started happening?
> >
> > This has happened since the moment I switched from
> > 2.4 to 2.5.63-mm1.
>
> You have not actually said whether 2.5.63 base exhibits
> the same problem. From the vmstat traces it appears
> that the answer is "yes"?
Both 2.5.63 and 2.5.63-mm1 exhibit this behavior, but
can't be reproduced with 2.4.20-2.54.
> > I have retested this with 2.4.20-2.54, 2.5.63 and 2.5.63-mm1...
> > and have attached the files to this message
>
> Thanks. Note how 2.4 is consuming a few percent CPU, whereas 2.5 is
> consuming 100%. Approximately half of it system time.
It seems is not "user" or "system" time what's being consumed, it's
"iowait" Look below :-)
> It does appear that some change in 2.5 has caused evolution to go berserk
> during this operation.
I wouldn't say it's exactly Evolution what's going berserk. Doing a
"top -s1" while trying to reply to a big e-mail message, I've noticed
that "top" reports "iowait" starting at ~50%, then going up very fast
and then staying up at 90-95% all the time. This happens on 2.5.63
and 2.5.63-mm1, however, on 2.4.20-2.54 kernel, "iowait" stays all
the time exactly at "0%" and idle time remains steady at 90-95%.
These measures were taken using "top" with a delay of 1 second,
starting at the moment in which I try replying to a large e-mail
message.
> The next step please is:
>
> a) run top during the operation, work out which process is chewing all
> that CPU. Presumably it will be evolution or aspell
Well, the "top" command reveals that Evolution is taking very
little CPU usage (between 1 and 6%). Nearly all the time is
accounted under "iowait".
The other Evolution processes top at a peak sum of 5% of
CPU usage, more or less.
> b) Do it again and this time run
> strace -p $(pidof evolution) # or aspell
I think this is going to be difficult... as I said Evolution is a very
complex program and it spawns a lot of processes. When I
click the Reply, Evolution spawns two processes:
"gnome-gtkhtml-editor" and "gnome-spell-component".
I have little experience with process tracing and don't know
how to attach to those processes from the very beginning.
Attaching to the main Evolution process doesn't help: the "strace"
command dumps a lot of info when Evolution starts up, but
starts being useless at the moment I click the Reply and Evolution
spawns these two new processes to process the request.
Any ideas?
> This will tell us what it is up to.
I'm sorry I can't help much more. Can you give me more
pointers on how to nail this down?
Thanks!
Felipe Alfaro Solana
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze
next reply other threads:[~2003-03-02 11:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-02 11:40 Felipe Alfaro Solana [this message]
2003-03-02 20:43 ` anticipatory scheduling questions Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-03-02 21:50 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-03-01 14:48 Felipe Alfaro Solana
[not found] <fa.g5ol5kg.cgoq0g@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.hp882fv.1u0orj9@ifi.uio.no>
2003-03-01 12:48 ` Ed Tomlinson
2003-03-01 10:25 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-03-01 10:40 ` Andrew Morton
2003-03-01 11:51 ` David Lang
2003-03-01 17:15 ` Alan Cox
2003-02-28 23:12 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-28 23:16 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-28 14:38 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-28 19:14 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-28 12:18 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-28 12:44 ` Andrew Morton
2003-02-27 22:24 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-02-27 23:26 ` Andrew Morton
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=20030302114035.22346.qmail@linuxmail.org \
--to=felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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.