From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manuel Krause Subject: Re: Comparison of notail and notail,iicache(14) 2.4.19-pre7 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 00:56:53 +0200 Message-ID: <3CC9DB35.6010106@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> References: <200204260657.32516.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> <200204261845.45178.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> <3CC9C4F6.2090508@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <200204270000.50274.Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: Dieter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N=FCtzel?= Cc: reiserfs-list , "Yury Yu. Rupasov" On 04/27/2002 12:00 AM, Dieter N=FCtzel wrote: > On Friday 26 April 2002 23:21, Manuel Krause wrote: >=20 >>On 04/26/2002 06:45 PM, Dieter N=FCtzel wrote: >> >>>On Friday 26 April 2002 13:41, Yury Yu. Rupasov wrote: >>> >>>>Dieter N=FCtzel wrote: >>>> >>>>>Manuel Krause wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[-] >>>>> >=20 > [-] >=20 >=20 >>>Had that before but Chris and Oleg gave me advice. >>>I tried it this way: >>> >>>/* lock the current transaction */ >>>inline static void lock_journal(struct super_block *p_s_sb) { >>> PROC_INFO_INC( p_s_sb, journal.lock_journal ); >>> debug_lock_break(1); >>> conditional_schedule(); >>> down(&SB_JOURNAL(p_s_sb)->j_lock); >>>} >>> >>>/* unlock the current transaction */ >>>inline static void unlock_journal(struct super_block *p_s_sb) { >>> up(&SB_JOURNAL(p_s_sb)->j_lock); >>>} >>> >>>But then it seems to be _NOT_ preempt (+lock-break) save. >>>System lock up (nothing in the logs, SysRq key didn't work) during >>>latencytest0.42-png write test. Read test worked. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> Dieter >>> >>Mmh, I made this adjustment in the patch, too, since the first speedup >>patches had been posted. I really don't know how serious this could be >>in this code context. >> >>I had random hard locks,too, but blamed it to my degenerating hardware >>so far. >> >=20 > I think it is hardly hardware related. > Try without lock-break (only disable it during make xconfig). I should, if it helped for you. I've lost too much work time inbetween=20 for now. >=20 >=20 >>Could anyone else advise on preempt+lock-break-awareness here? >> >=20 > Yura, Chris, Oleg or at least Robert Love :-) > But Robert hasn't updated the lock-break stuff for some time. He will d= o it=20 > soon. >=20 Yepp. I observed this fact and hope Robert to do so. >=20 >>The linux-2.4.19p6-compound-speedup.patch seems to be another measurabl= e >>tick faster than Olegs first patchset. Maybe, I'll post some values on >>my setup over the weekend. I've had one faster run so far but it locked= >>up without log hints... ;-)) >> >=20 > Ha, ha,...:-) >=20 > Then I have one more for you: >=20 > Page coloring patch. > It gave ~10% speedup on my 1 GHz Athlon II SlotA (0,18=B5m, L2 512K) fo= r memory=20 > intensive apps. But be aware, it locks up randomly. The maintainer is l= ooking=20 > for SMP testers 'cause it has something to-do with SMP -> preemption. > My system is stable but lockup from time to time with the page_color mo= dule=20 > loaded during "heavy" C and C++ compilations (~40 processes running in = > parallel). If I read this correctly I should leave my fingers from it... Did I make a general mistake? Preempt+ does bring valuable advantages to = my PIII 933 _uniprocessor_ setup, too. >=20 > Have a nice weekend. >=20 > -Dieter >=20 > BTW I'm working on Win VFAT disk recovery. Two damaged IBM IC35L060AVER= 07-0=20 > costomer disks. One with only a single partition and one with three=20 > partitions. Any advice if I should try with dd on the whole disk or eve= ry=20 > partition? >=20 >=20 Maybe we should exchange our actual hdparm and powertweak settings in=20 private via phone soon? ;-) On my current setup I have higher disk troughput rates on small=20 partitions (<0.5GB) but dropoffs in the middle of larger ones (~2GB) if=20 I trust the ksysguard display. I simply do "dd if=3D/dev/hda3 bs=3D1M=20 of=3D/dev/hdd3" after earlier timeless fiddling with bs=3Dxyz and=20 xyz~disk-cylinder-size(=3D16065 * 512 bytes)*2^(?) did not give=20 advantages in the past. I did not do complete disk dd-s so far but had=20 many at the end of a dd with the current patch setup and partitions=20 >0.3GB with the conventional bdflush and disk read/write-latency=20 parameters. Find your poison! Have a nice weekend, too! And thanks for your comments, Dieter! Manuel