From: David Rees <dbr@greenhydrant.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Putrid Elevator Behavior 2.4.18/19
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:45:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020325174555.A3252@greenhydrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020320120455.A19074@vger.timpanogas.org> <20020320220241.GC29857@matchmail.com> <20020320152008.A19978@vger.timpanogas.org> <20020320152504.B19978@vger.timpanogas.org> <3C9935CA.38E6F56F@zip.com.au> <20020320234552.A21740@vger.timpanogas.org> <20020325181645.A17171@vger.timpanogas.org>
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 06:16:45PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > The elevator starvation change went into 2.4.19-pre1 I think.
> > > It shouldn't affect the problem which you've described - that
> > > change improved the situation where tasks were sleeping for
> > > long periods when they want to insert new requests. But the
> > > problem which you're observing appears to affect already-inserted
> > > requests.
> > >
> > > "Several minutes" is downright odd. From your description
> > > it seems that all the requests are writes, but some of the
> > > writes (at a remote end of the disk) are being bypassed far
> > > too many times.
> > >
> > > The bypass count _is_ tunable. Although it sounds like the logic
> > > has come unstuck in some manner, it would be interesting if
> > > changing the elevator latency parameters for that queue affected
> > > the situation.
> > >
> > > Have you experimented with `elvtune -r NNN /dev/foo' and
> > > `elvtune -w NNN /dev/foo'?
> >
> > No, but I will test this tonight. I am in tonight working on
> > this problem until I run it down.
>
> I have been running a test run against 2.4.19-pre4 (and later) for
> over a week non-stop and the elevator problem appears to have been
> corrected by this fix. I will update further if the problem
> resurfaces.
Jeff,
Did upgrading to 2.4.19-pre4 by itself fix your problems, or did you need to
tweak with elvtune as well? If so, what values did you find produced
optimal results?
-Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-26 1:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-20 19:04 Putrid Elevator Behavior 2.4.18/19 Jeff V. Merkey
2002-03-20 22:02 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-03-20 22:20 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2002-03-20 22:25 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2002-03-21 1:22 ` Andrew Morton
2002-03-21 6:45 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2002-03-26 1:16 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2002-03-26 1:42 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-03-26 17:03 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2002-03-27 7:03 ` Jens Axboe
2002-03-27 23:20 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2002-03-26 1:45 ` David Rees [this message]
2002-03-26 1:57 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-03-26 17:00 ` Jeff V. Merkey
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=20020325174555.A3252@greenhydrant.com \
--to=dbr@greenhydrant.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox