From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:24:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m0NEOYOB026370 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:24:37 -0800 Received: from enyo.dsw2k3.info (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 2002E54ED61 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from enyo.dsw2k3.info (enyo.dsw2k3.info [195.71.86.239]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id BRV2qFhz6jFmEDKr for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:24:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:24:42 +0100 From: Matthias Schniedermeyer Subject: Re: XFS doesn't correctly account for IO-Wait for directory reading Message-ID: <20080123142442.GA12440@citd.de> References: <20080123110027.GA10366@citd.de> <20080123121741.GA24405@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080123121741.GA24405@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 23.01.2008 12:17, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Try this one-liner patch which should give you much better I/O wait > reporting. There's some more I/O waits hidden in the log code, but to > fix this we'd need to dig into the sv_t abstraction. Given that it only > has four users left I'm probably going to simply remove it and fix the > I/O wait accounting while I'm at it. Either with 2.6.23.12 & 2.6.24-git-HEAD, and the shown line changed, the %wa reported by top is still at 0.0 Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.