From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267633AbUHXKQP (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:16:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267433AbUHXKPp (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:15:45 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:43679 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267394AbUHXKPZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:15:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:13:53 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Karl Vogel Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6.8.1: swap storm of death - CFQ scheduler=culprit Message-ID: <20040824101352.GJ2355@suse.de> References: <6DED3619289CD311BCEB00508B8E133601A68B13@nt-server2.antwerp.seagha.com> <20040824100342.GI2355@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040824100342.GI2355@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 24 2004, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23 2004, Karl Vogel wrote: > > > > Jens, is this huge amount of bio/biovec's allocations > > > expected with CFQ? Its really really bad. > > > > > > Nope, it's not by design :-) > > > > > > A test case would be nice, then I'll fix it as soon as possible. But > > > please retest with 2.6.8.1 marcelo, 2.6.8-rc4 is missing an important > > > fix to ll_rw_blk that can easily cause this. The first report is for > > > 2.6.8.1, so I'm more puzzled on that. > > > > I tried with 2.6.8.1 and 2.6.8.1-mm4, both had the problem. If there > > is anything extra I need to try/record, just shoot! > > > > Original post with testcase + stats: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/228156 > > 2.6.8.1-mm4 clean does not reproduce the problem. Marcelo, your > 2.6.8-rc4 report is not valid due to the fixed problem related to that > in CFQ already. I'd still like for you to retest with 2.6.8.1. > > So I'm trying 2.6.8.1 with voluntary preempt applied now, the bug could > be related to that. Oh, and please do also do a sysrq-t from a hung box and save the output. -- Jens Axboe