From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932293AbVJYSdr (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:33:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932296AbVJYSdr (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:33:47 -0400 Received: from atlrel9.hp.com ([156.153.255.214]:10162 "EHLO atlrel9.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932293AbVJYSdr (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:33:47 -0400 Message-ID: <435E7A7B.3040806@hp.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:33:31 -0400 From: Mark Seger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Patch for inconsistent recording of block device statistics] References: <435D0F45.90906@hp.com> <20051025064014.GO2811@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20051025064014.GO2811@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org yes, the patch worked. The general discussion was that the byte counter gets incremented when requests are queued, not when they're acted upon as is the case with the count of I/Os. As a result, the disk write numbers don't make any sense reporting impossibly high numbers (>100MB and as high as 450!) during some times and at other reporting zeros. The entire time, the I/O counts are happily showing what appear to be correct numbers. Here's a snapshot taken during a portion of a 2GB file file to /tmp. # DISK SUMMARY (/sec) # Reads R-Merged R-KBytes Writes W-Merged W-KBytes 14:26:38 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:26:39 0 0 0 90 4391 18368 14:26:40 0 0 0 577 12603 52696 14:26:41 0 0 0 563 107835 446728 14:26:42 0 0 0 445 0 0 14:26:43 0 0 0 442 0 0 14:26:44 0 0 0 445 0 0 14:26:45 0 0 0 354 0 0 14:26:46 0 0 0 442 0 0 14:26:47 0 0 0 443 0 0 14:26:48 0 0 0 408 0 0 14:26:49 0 0 4 439 782 3280 14:26:50 1 0 0 462 12230 51160 14:26:51 0 0 0 574 88342 366116 14:26:52 0 0 0 477 32881 136604 14:26:53 0 0 0 443 9101 37656 14:26:54 0 0 0 442 11779 48736 14:26:55 0 0 0 373 0 0 14:26:56 0 0 0 415 0 0 -mark Jens Axboe wrote: >On Mon, Oct 24 2005, Mark Seger wrote: > > >>This patch was discussed back in march, and I still haven't seen it show >>up in the source pool. I was wondering if it just feel through the >>cracks or if it was planned for a specific future release. If the >>attached doesn't provide enough context for you to remember what this is >>all about, just let me know... >> >> > >Refresh my memory on where the discussion went after this email, I don't >recall. Did the patch work for you? > > > >