Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of arjan@linux.intel.com designates 134.134.136.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=134.134.136.21;
Message-ID: <47B85C22.3070504@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:09:06 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14 (Windows/20071210)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?= <edwintorok@gmail.com>
CC: power@bughost.org
Subject: Re: new offender in 2.6.25-git: xfsaild
References: <47B5D405.409@gmail.com> <47B8538F.7060209@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <47B8538F.7060209@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Török Edwin wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On latest -git of 2.6.25 I am getting lots of wakeups from xfsaild.
>>   23.5% ( 33.3)           xfsaild : schedule_timeout (process_timeout)
>>   
> 
> [Should I Cc: xfs mailing list / lkml on this?]
> 
> The problem seems to be with the timeout logic in xfsaild_push, which
> can return 3 timeout values (msecs): 1000, 10, 20, 30.
> I inserted a marker and attached a probe function, schedule_timeout
> always got called with 9 jiffies (which is 30 msecs, I have HZ=300).
> 
> Changing xfs_trans_ail.c:270 from "tout += 20" to "tout = 1000", made
> xfsaild only do 1 wakeup/s instead of 33!
> 
> For some reason xfs_aild always thinks it has work (I/O) to do, and
> never chooses the 1000 msec sleep value.
> 

sounds like an XFS bug... worth reporting to the xfs/lkml folks for sure.