High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Jason Schoonover]

Hi all,

I'm not sure if this is the right list to post to, so please direct me to the 
appropriate list if this is the wrong one.

I'm having some problems on the latest 2.6.17-rc3 kernel and SCSI disk I/O.  
Whenever I copy any large file (over 500GB) the load average starts to slowly 
rise and after about a minute it is up to 7.5 and keeps on rising (depending 
on how long the file takes to copy).  When I watch top, the processes at the 
top of the list are cp, pdflush, kjournald and kswapd.

I just recently upgraded the box, it used to run Redhat 9 with kernel 2.4.20 
just fine.  This problem did not show up with 2.4.20.  I just recently 
installed Debian/unstable on it and that's when the problems started showing 
up.

Initially the problem showed up on debian's 2.6.15-1-686-smp kernel pkg, so I 
upgraded to 2.6.16-1-686; same problem, I then downloaded 2.6.16.12 from 
kernel.org and finally ended up downloading and compiling 2.6.17-rc3 and same 
problem occurs.

The hardware is a Dell PowerEdge 2650 Dual Xeon 2.4GHZ/2GB RAM, the hard drive 
controller is (as reported by lspci):

0000:04:08.1 RAID bus controller: Dell PowerEdge Expandable RAID Controller 
3/Di (rev 01)
0000:05:06.0 SCSI storage controller: Adaptec RAID subsystem HBA (rev 01)
0000:05:06.1 SCSI storage controller: Adaptec RAID subsystem HBA (rev 01)

The PERC RAID configuration is four 136GB SCSI drives RAID5'd together.

Can anybody help me out here?  Maybe I'm doing something wrong with the 
configuration.  Any help/suggestions would be great.

Thanks,
Jason Schoonover

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Robert Hancock]

Jason Schoonover wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm not sure if this is the right list to post to, so please direct me to the 
> appropriate list if this is the wrong one.
> 
> I'm having some problems on the latest 2.6.17-rc3 kernel and SCSI disk I/O.  
> Whenever I copy any large file (over 500GB) the load average starts to slowly 
> rise and after about a minute it is up to 7.5 and keeps on rising (depending 
> on how long the file takes to copy).  When I watch top, the processes at the 
> top of the list are cp, pdflush, kjournald and kswapd.
> 

Are there some processes stuck in D state? These will contribute to the 
load average even if they are not using CPU.

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Jason Schoonover]

Hi Robert,

There are, this is the relevant output of the process list:

 ...
 4659 pts/6    Ss     0:00 -bash
 4671 pts/5    R+     0:12 cp -a test-dir/ new-test
 4676 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
 4679 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
 4687 pts/4    D+     0:01 hdparm -t /dev/sda
 4688 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
 4690 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
 4692 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
 ...

This was when I was copying a directory and then doing a performance test with 
hdparm in a separate shell.  The hdparm process was in [D+] state and 
basically waited until the cp was finished.  During the whole thing there 
were up to 5 pdflush processes in [D] state.

The 5 minute load average hit 8.90 during this test.

Does that help?

Jason

-------Original Message-----
From: Robert Hancock
Sent: Friday 05 May 2006 16:12
To: linux-kernel
Subject: Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

Jason Schoonover wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm not sure if this is the right list to post to, so please direct me to
> the appropriate list if this is the wrong one.
>
> I'm having some problems on the latest 2.6.17-rc3 kernel and SCSI disk I/O.
> Whenever I copy any large file (over 500GB) the load average starts to
> slowly rise and after about a minute it is up to 7.5 and keeps on rising
> (depending on how long the file takes to copy).  When I watch top, the
> processes at the top of the list are cp, pdflush, kjournald and kswapd.

Are there some processes stuck in D state? These will contribute to the
load average even if they are not using CPU.

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Robert Hancock]

Jason Schoonover wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> There are, this is the relevant output of the process list:
> 
>  ...
>  4659 pts/6    Ss     0:00 -bash
>  4671 pts/5    R+     0:12 cp -a test-dir/ new-test
>  4676 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  4679 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  4687 pts/4    D+     0:01 hdparm -t /dev/sda
>  4688 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  4690 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  4692 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  ...
> 
> This was when I was copying a directory and then doing a performance test with 
> hdparm in a separate shell.  The hdparm process was in [D+] state and 
> basically waited until the cp was finished.  During the whole thing there 
> were up to 5 pdflush processes in [D] state.
> 
> The 5 minute load average hit 8.90 during this test.
> 
> Does that help?

Well, it obviously explains why the load average is high, those D state 
processes all count in the load average. It may be sort of a cosmetic 
issue, since they're not actually using any CPU, but it's still a bit 
unusual. For one thing, not sure why there are that many of them?

You could try enabling the SysRq triggers (if they're not already in 
your kernel/distro) and doing Alt-SysRq-T which will dump the kernel 
stack of all processes, that should show where exactly in the kernel 
those pdflush processes are blocked..

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Jason Schoonover]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1745 bytes --]

Hi Robert,

I did started a ncftpget and managed to get 6 pdflush processes running in 
state D, hopefully this will give us a chance to debug it.

I've attached the entire Alt+SysReq+T output here because I have no idea how 
to read it.

Thanks,
Jason

-------Original Message-----
From: Robert Hancock
Sent: Saturday 06 May 2006 10:20
To: Jason Schoonover
Subject: Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

Jason Schoonover wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> There are, this is the relevant output of the process list:
>
>  ...
>  4659 pts/6    Ss     0:00 -bash
>  4671 pts/5    R+     0:12 cp -a test-dir/ new-test
>  4676 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  4679 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  4687 pts/4    D+     0:01 hdparm -t /dev/sda
>  4688 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  4690 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  4692 ?        D      0:00 [pdflush]
>  ...
>
> This was when I was copying a directory and then doing a performance test
> with hdparm in a separate shell.  The hdparm process was in [D+] state and
> basically waited until the cp was finished.  During the whole thing there
> were up to 5 pdflush processes in [D] state.
>
> The 5 minute load average hit 8.90 during this test.
>
> Does that help?

Well, it obviously explains why the load average is high, those D state
processes all count in the load average. It may be sort of a cosmetic
issue, since they're not actually using any CPU, but it's still a bit
unusual. For one thing, not sure why there are that many of them?

You could try enabling the SysRq triggers (if they're not already in
your kernel/distro) and doing Alt-SysRq-T which will dump the kernel
stack of all processes, that should show where exactly in the kernel
those pdflush processes are blocked..

[-- Attachment #2: sysreq.output.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 31887 bytes --]

 015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166   <b0104a5b> do_IRQ+0x22/0x2b
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 snmpd         S 3C14DC00     0  3771      1          3778  3764 (NOTLB)
        f7975b58 f78d8300 0000000f 3c14dc00 00000000 000186a0 d5831281 000f68dc 
        dfbc4688 dfbc4580 b21a0540 b2014340 7b773b00 000f9663 00000001 b01273fc 
        b21f0500 f78aef00 00200286 b011e999 f7975b68 f7975b68 00200286 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
  <b026fd89> schedule_timeout+0x6c/0x8b   <b011ecff> process_timeout+0x0/0x9
  <b015baca> do_select+0x3b6/0x41e   <f88df929> ext3_mark_iloc_dirty+0x2a7/0x345 [ext3]
  <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b0113571> try_to_wake_up+0x327/0x331
  <b01609e5> inode_init_once+0x4c/0x14c   <b0149394> cache_alloc_refill+0x39e/0x45d
  <b0149062> cache_alloc_refill+0x6c/0x45d   <b01117b5> __wake_up_common+0x2a/0x4f
  <b017605f> proc_alloc_inode+0x41/0x66   <b0160911> alloc_inode+0xf5/0x17d
  <b016e6c0> inotify_d_instantiate+0x3b/0x5e   <b015fd63> d_instantiate+0x45/0x78
  <b0160557> d_rehash+0x4f/0x5f   <b0178a39> proc_lookup+0x77/0xaf
  <b0137669> get_page_from_freelist+0x7e/0x31a   <b0137895> get_page_from_freelist+0x2aa/0x31a
  <b015bd1a> core_sys_select+0x1e8/0x2a2   <b01ad8db> vsnprintf+0x423/0x461
  <b0137c3a> free_hot_cold_page+0x91/0xcd   <b0137c90> __pagevec_free+0x1a/0x24
  <b01393de> release_pages+0x147/0x150   <b0142040> page_remove_rmap+0x27/0x2a
  <b021303e> lock_sock+0x85/0x8d   <b0213d18> sk_free+0xa8/0xe2
  <b0210e8e> sock_destroy_inode+0x13/0x16   <b015f456> dput+0x1b/0x11e
  <b015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166   <b011b272> sys_gettimeofday+0x22/0x51
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 smbd          S 000F4240     0  3776   3764                     (NOTLB)
        df977fb0 00000000 00000000 000f4240 00000000 00028b0a 00000012 00000002 
        dff18178 dff18070 dfb78580 b200c340 1685e740 000f41ff 00000000 00000000 
        00000001 00000007 df977fbc dff18070 00000001 df977fbc b0282b65 00000007 
 Call Trace:
  <b011fa32> sys_pause+0x14/0x1a   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 sshd          S 004C4B40     0  3778      1  3875    3820  3771 (NOTLB)
        f7f77b60 b23c4374 00000000 004c4b40 00000000 00000000 f8545f80 000f68dd 
        dfb81138 dfb81030 b02b0480 b200c340 ca71c780 000f95ea 00000000 00000000 
        dfa76ac8 00200246 b01273fc fffffffc df989a80 00200246 b023aee4 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30   <b023aee4> tcp_poll+0x24/0x134
  <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b   <b02112c0> sock_poll+0x13/0x17
  <b015baca> do_select+0x3b6/0x41e   <f88df929> ext3_mark_iloc_dirty+0x2a7/0x345 [ext3]
  <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b014f430> __getblk+0x1d/0x211
  <f8874995> do_get_write_access+0x44a/0x45c [jbd]   <b01114b5> __activate_task+0x47/0x56
  <b0113571> try_to_wake_up+0x327/0x331   <f88e698a> __ext3_journal_stop+0x19/0x37 [ext3]
  <b01271f4> autoremove_wake_function+0x18/0x3a   <b01117b5> __wake_up_common+0x2a/0x4f
  <b0149062> cache_alloc_refill+0x6c/0x45d   <b01ab175> kobject_put+0x16/0x19
  <b01ab69b> kobject_release+0x0/0xa   <b0215457> __alloc_skb+0x4a/0xee
  <b0213988> sock_alloc_send_skb+0x5a/0x188   <b0217138> memcpy_fromiovec+0x29/0x4e
  <b0214593> sock_def_readable+0x11/0x5e   <b02659e1> unix_stream_sendmsg+0x21b/0x2e6
  <b015bd1a> core_sys_select+0x1e8/0x2a2   <b0211077> do_sock_write+0xa4/0xad
  <b0137669> get_page_from_freelist+0x7e/0x31a   <b0137953> __alloc_pages+0x4e/0x261
  <b0142611> __page_set_anon_rmap+0x2b/0x2f   <b013d845> do_wp_page+0x244/0x286
  <b013d869> do_wp_page+0x268/0x286   <b0215117> skb_dequeue+0x3b/0x41
  <b0160690> destroy_inode+0x48/0x4c   <b015f456> dput+0x1b/0x11e
  <b015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166   <b014a58a> filp_close+0x4e/0x57
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 rpc.statd     S 006ACFC0     0  3820      1          3828  3778 (NOTLB)
        df9a9b60 b01114b5 b0328460 006acfc0 00000000 00000000 00000100 00000000 
        dfb7a138 dfb7a030 b21a0540 b2014340 3b0f8a80 000f41ff 00000001 f78a4c80 
        00000246 00000246 b01273fc 00000304 df917b80 00000246 b023aee4 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b01114b5> __activate_task+0x47/0x56   <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30
  <b023aee4> tcp_poll+0x24/0x134   <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b
  <b02112c0> sock_poll+0x13/0x17   <b015baca> do_select+0x3b6/0x41e
  <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b021a02c> net_rx_action+0x98/0x146   <b011bdf9> __do_softirq+0x57/0xc0
  <b011bfc0> local_bh_enable+0x5b/0x66   <b021aff9> dev_queue_xmit+0x1e5/0x1eb
  <b02377ea> ip_output+0x1c0/0x1f6   <b02369b7> ip_push_pending_frames+0x351/0x3dd
  <b02170ea> memcpy_toiovec+0x29/0x4e   <b0217824> skb_copy_datagram_iovec+0x49/0x1a6
  <b0215932> kfree_skbmem+0x65/0x69   <b024e64d> udp_recvmsg+0x18a/0x1d3
  <b021318b> sock_common_recvmsg+0x36/0x4b   <b0212a1e> sock_recvmsg+0xf1/0x10d
  <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a   <b015bd1a> core_sys_select+0x1e8/0x2a2
  <b0210e04> move_addr_to_user+0x3a/0x52   <b0212d12> sys_recvfrom+0xfc/0x134
  <b021303e> lock_sock+0x85/0x8d   <b0211aa5> sys_bind+0x73/0xa0
  <b0213d18> sk_free+0xa8/0xe2   <b0210e8e> sock_destroy_inode+0x13/0x16
  <b015f456> dput+0x1b/0x11e   <b015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166
  <b014a58a> filp_close+0x4e/0x57   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 ntpd          S 39E048C0     0  3828      1          3836  3820 (NOTLB)
        df8d7b60 0583c2ce 00000127 39e048c0 00000000 00000000 00000000 b011bdf9 
        b21ddb98 b21dda90 b02b0480 b200c340 48b33bc0 000f966c 00000000 dff27540 
        00000246 b021773c dff27540 df98a118 df8d7bd4 df98a100 dff27540 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b011bdf9> __do_softirq+0x57/0xc0   <b021773c> datagram_poll+0x21/0xc0
  <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b   <b02112c0> sock_poll+0x13/0x17
  <b015baca> do_select+0x3b6/0x41e   <f88df929> ext3_mark_iloc_dirty+0x2a7/0x345 [ext3]
  <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b021aff9> dev_queue_xmit+0x1e5/0x1eb
  <b02377ea> ip_output+0x1c0/0x1f6   <b0113571> try_to_wake_up+0x327/0x331
  <b0214593> sock_def_readable+0x11/0x5e   <b01117b5> __wake_up_common+0x2a/0x4f
  <b0111803> __wake_up+0x29/0x3c   <b02145b5> sock_def_readable+0x33/0x5e
  <b0243570> tcp_rcv_established+0x40e/0x69a   <f886501c> ipt_hook+0x1c/0x20 [iptable_filter]
  <b024963e> tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x23/0x2ba   <b0232a0a> ip_local_deliver_finish+0x0/0x193
  <b0232a0a> ip_local_deliver_finish+0x0/0x193   <b024a72a> tcp_v4_rcv+0x889/0x8dd
  <b0232bf8> ip_local_deliver+0x5b/0x1fd   <b0232cf6> ip_local_deliver+0x159/0x1fd
  <b0213117> sk_reset_timer+0x12/0x1e   <b02447b1> tcp_send_delayed_ack+0xb7/0xbd
  <b015bd1a> core_sys_select+0x1e8/0x2a2   <f886501c> ipt_hook+0x1c/0x20 [iptable_filter]
  <b011f676> __sigqueue_free+0x2a/0x2f   <b010710a> convert_fxsr_to_user+0xdf/0x12e
  <b0107274> save_i387+0xf0/0x105   <b0101e68> setup_sigcontext+0xde/0x11c
  <b0102490> do_notify_resume+0x4ab/0x58b   <b010729f> convert_fxsr_from_user+0x16/0xd6
  <b015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166   <b0101c66> restore_sigcontext+0x102/0x14c
  <b0101fc0> sys_sigreturn+0x98/0xbd   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 atd           S 000F4240     0  3836      1          3843  3828 (NOTLB)
        df8b5f1c df8b5ee8 30b8a000 000f4240 00000000 00000000 445cddcf f7e23f5c 
        b21c8178 b21c8070 b21a0540 b2014340 a2ec1c80 000f93e0 00000001 b2014d94 
        b2014d8c b2014d8c 1268d3c8 00000282 b012996a 00000000 e1b033c8 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b012996a> hrtimer_start+0xc5/0xd0   <b0270109> do_nanosleep+0x3b/0x63
  <b01299b8> hrtimer_nanosleep+0x43/0xfe   <b0120244> do_sigaction+0x92/0x149
  <b0129596> hrtimer_wakeup+0x0/0x1c   <b0129ab0> sys_nanosleep+0x3d/0x51
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 cron          S 03A2C940     0  3843      1          3859  3836 (NOTLB)
        f7e23f1c f7e23ee8 f8475800 03a2c940 00000000 00000000 445ce895 f7fb5cc4 
        dff6e648 dff6e540 b02b0480 b200c340 23033000 000f9663 00000000 b200cd94 
        b200cd8c b200cd8c 264ea2e8 00000282 b012996a 00000000 2e074ae8 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b012996a> hrtimer_start+0xc5/0xd0   <b0270109> do_nanosleep+0x3b/0x63
  <b01299b8> hrtimer_nanosleep+0x43/0xfe   <b0120244> do_sigaction+0x92/0x149
  <b0129596> hrtimer_wakeup+0x0/0x1c   <b0129ab0> sys_nanosleep+0x3d/0x51
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 login         S 00895440     0  3859      1  5750    3860  3843 (NOTLB)
        df9abf68 f7f5f580 df9aa000 00895440 00000000 00000000 b18f9d4c 7ee02065 
        dfb81b58 dfb81a50 b02b0480 b200c340 40787740 000f95d1 00000000 f7880740 
        00000140 c647b080 b026f8ed df9abfb4 00000286 00000000 00895440 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b026f8ed> schedule+0xa0d/0xaaf   <b011a7cd> do_wait+0x8ab/0x94d
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011a896> sys_wait4+0x27/0x2a
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 getty         S 000F4240     0  3860      1          3861  3859 (NOTLB)
        df975edc 00000246 00000000 000f4240 00000000 00000000 00000020 b01fb342 
        dfb7bb98 dfb7ba90 dfb81a50 b200c340 85ce1000 000f41ff 00000000 00000000 
        000000ff b1fdc520 b02b5ba0 b02b5ba0 b01393de df975ec8 00000001 00000202 
 Call Trace:
  <b01fb342> do_con_write+0x141f/0x1450   <b01393de> release_pages+0x147/0x150
  <b01179cd> release_console_sem+0x157/0x191   <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b
  <b01fb3ba> con_write+0x1d/0x23   <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30
  <b01f2383> read_chan+0x321/0x53e   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b01ee431> tty_read+0x5d/0x9f   <b014bc1d> vfs_read+0xa3/0x13a
  <b014c5cc> sys_read+0x3b/0x64   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 getty         S 000F4240     0  3861      1          3862  3860 (NOTLB)
        df9a7edc 00000246 00000000 000f4240 00000000 00000000 00000020 b01fb342 
        dfbc7138 dfbc7030 b02b0480 b200c340 861a5b40 000f41ff 00000000 00000000 
        000000ff b1fdc520 b02b5ba0 b02b5ba0 b01393de df9a7ec8 00000001 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b01fb342> do_con_write+0x141f/0x1450   <b01393de> release_pages+0x147/0x150
  <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b   <b01fb3ba> con_write+0x1d/0x23
  <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30   <b01f2383> read_chan+0x321/0x53e
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b01ee431> tty_read+0x5d/0x9f
  <b014bc1d> vfs_read+0xa3/0x13a   <b014c5cc> sys_read+0x3b/0x64
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 getty         S 000F4240     0  3862      1          3863  3861 (NOTLB)
        df99bedc 00000246 00000000 000f4240 00000000 00000000 861a5b40 000f41ff 
        dfbba138 dfbba030 dfbc7030 b200c340 861a5b40 000f41ff 00000000 00000000 
        000000ff b1fdc520 b02b5ba0 b02b5ba0 b200c380 df99bec8 00000001 00000206 
 Call Trace:
  <b01179cd> release_console_sem+0x157/0x191   <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b
  <b01fb3ba> con_write+0x1d/0x23   <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30
  <b01f2383> read_chan+0x321/0x53e   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b01ee431> tty_read+0x5d/0x9f   <b014bc1d> vfs_read+0xa3/0x13a
  <b014c5cc> sys_read+0x3b/0x64   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 getty         S 002DC6C0     0  3863      1          3864  3862 (NOTLB)
        f7ed3edc 00000246 00000000 002dc6c0 00000000 00000000 00000020 b01fb342 
        dffafb98 dffafa90 b21a0540 b2014340 85fbd6c0 000f41ff 00000001 00000000 
        000000ff b1fb66e0 b02b5ba0 b02b5ba0 b01393de f7ed3ec8 00000001 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b01fb342> do_con_write+0x141f/0x1450   <b01393de> release_pages+0x147/0x150
  <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b   <b01fb3ba> con_write+0x1d/0x23
  <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30   <b01f2383> read_chan+0x321/0x53e
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b01ee431> tty_read+0x5d/0x9f
  <b014bc1d> vfs_read+0xa3/0x13a   <b014c5cc> sys_read+0x3b/0x64
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 getty         S 000F4240     0  3864      1          5964  3863 (NOTLB)
        df9ededc 00000246 00000000 000f4240 00000000 00000000 00000020 b01fb342 
        dfb75138 dfb75030 b21a0540 b2014340 8638dfc0 000f41ff 00000001 00000000 
        000000ff b1fb66e0 b02b5ba0 b02b5ba0 b01393de df9edec8 00000001 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b01fb342> do_con_write+0x141f/0x1450   <b01393de> release_pages+0x147/0x150
  <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b   <b01fb3ba> con_write+0x1d/0x23
  <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30   <b01f2383> read_chan+0x321/0x53e
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b01ee431> tty_read+0x5d/0x9f
  <b014bc1d> vfs_read+0xa3/0x13a   <b014c5cc> sys_read+0x3b/0x64
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 sshd          S 08B3C880     0  3875   3778  3877    3887       (NOTLB)
        df99fb60 008a184e 0000012b 08b3c880 00000000 00000000 97a171c0 000f4a7c 
        b21dfb58 b21dfa50 dffbfa50 b200c340 3f0f6200 000f4a7d 00000000 00000000 
        df99fb54 b0111803 00000000 00000000 00000003 00000046 f797100c 00000286 
 Call Trace:
  <b0111803> __wake_up+0x29/0x3c   <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b
  <b01ee160> tty_poll+0x4a/0x54   <b015baca> do_select+0x3b6/0x41e
  <b021d346> neigh_lookup+0x9c/0xa3   <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b0226a72> qdisc_restart+0x14/0x17f   <b021aff9> dev_queue_xmit+0x1e5/0x1eb
  <b02377ea> ip_output+0x1c0/0x1f6   <b023717e> ip_queue_xmit+0x34d/0x38f
  <b01114b5> __activate_task+0x47/0x56   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
  <b011f2c3> __mod_timer+0x90/0x98   <b0213117> sk_reset_timer+0x12/0x1e
  <b0243dea> update_send_head+0x7a/0x80   <b02468c8> __tcp_push_pending_frames+0x68f/0x74b
  <b0215457> __alloc_skb+0x4a/0xee   <b02133db> release_sock+0xf/0x97
  <b023d9ae> tcp_sendmsg+0x8ab/0x985   <b015bd1a> core_sys_select+0x1e8/0x2a2
  <b0211077> do_sock_write+0xa4/0xad   <b0211625> sock_aio_write+0x56/0x63
  <b014b99a> do_sync_write+0xc0/0xf3   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
  <b015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166   <b014c630> sys_write+0x3b/0x64
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 bash          S 02CD29C0     0  3877   3875                     (NOTLB)
        df8afedc b01ecee7 00000000 02cd29c0 00000000 00000000 df8b780c df8b7800 
        dffbfb58 dffbfa50 b02b0480 b200c340 3f0f6200 000f4a7d 00000000 00000010 
        00000000 df8aff14 dffbfa50 df8affbc b01209c2 f7814ac0 f7814c18 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b01ecee7> tty_ldisc_deref+0x52/0x61   <b01209c2> dequeue_signal+0x36/0xa4
  <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b   <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30
  <b01f2383> read_chan+0x321/0x53e   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b01ee431> tty_read+0x5d/0x9f   <b014bc1d> vfs_read+0xa3/0x13a
  <b014c5cc> sys_read+0x3b/0x64   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 sshd          S 1BA81400     0  3887   3778  3889    5760  3875 (NOTLB)
        df8b1b60 df8b1b58 df8b1b58 1ba81400 00000000 00000000 474e1feb 000f4a7e 
        dffbb648 dffbb540 b02b0480 b200c340 4758da80 000f4a7e 00000000 00000001 
        df8b1b54 b0111803 00000000 00000000 00000003 00000046 f780480c 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b0111803> __wake_up+0x29/0x3c   <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b
  <b01ee160> tty_poll+0x4a/0x54   <b015baca> do_select+0x3b6/0x41e
  <b024a28e> tcp_v4_rcv+0x3ed/0x8dd   <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b0226a72> qdisc_restart+0x14/0x17f   <b021aff9> dev_queue_xmit+0x1e5/0x1eb
  <b02377ea> ip_output+0x1c0/0x1f6   <b023717e> ip_queue_xmit+0x34d/0x38f
  <b021aff9> dev_queue_xmit+0x1e5/0x1eb   <b02377ea> ip_output+0x1c0/0x1f6
  <b023717e> ip_queue_xmit+0x34d/0x38f   <b01055a9> timer_interrupt+0x72/0x7a
  <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f   <b011f2c3> __mod_timer+0x90/0x98
  <b0213117> sk_reset_timer+0x12/0x1e   <b0243dea> update_send_head+0x7a/0x80
  <b02468c8> __tcp_push_pending_frames+0x68f/0x74b   <b0104a5b> do_IRQ+0x22/0x2b
  <b0215457> __alloc_skb+0x4a/0xee   <b02133db> release_sock+0xf/0x97
  <b023d9ae> tcp_sendmsg+0x8ab/0x985   <b015bd1a> core_sys_select+0x1e8/0x2a2
  <b0211077> do_sock_write+0xa4/0xad   <b0211625> sock_aio_write+0x56/0x63
  <b014b99a> do_sync_write+0xc0/0xf3   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
  <b015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166   <b014c630> sys_write+0x3b/0x64
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 bash          S 02CD29C0     0  3889   3887                     (NOTLB)
        df9a3edc b01ecee7 00000000 02cd29c0 00000000 00000000 4758da80 000f4a7e 
        dff18b98 dff18a90 dffbb540 b200c340 4758da80 000f4a7e 00000000 00000000 
        00000016 0202c205 00000002 1b02000a b200c380 f792d280 f7f8c634 f7f87280 
 Call Trace:
  <b01ecee7> tty_ldisc_deref+0x52/0x61   <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b
  <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30   <b01f2383> read_chan+0x321/0x53e
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b01ee431> tty_read+0x5d/0x9f
  <b014bc1d> vfs_read+0xa3/0x13a   <b014c5cc> sys_read+0x3b/0x64
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 bash          S 01312D00     0  5750   3859                     (NOTLB)
        b85cfedc 00000246 00000000 01312d00 00000000 000186a0 00000020 b01fb342 
        dfe73138 dfe73030 b02b0480 b200c340 05584d80 000f966b 00000000 00000000 
        000000ff 00000297 b01ba027 000003d4 00000297 b201e000 df808800 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b01fb342> do_con_write+0x141f/0x1450   <b01ba027> vgacon_set_cursor_size+0x34/0xd1
  <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b   <b01179cd> release_console_sem+0x157/0x191
  <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30   <b01f2383> read_chan+0x321/0x53e
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b01ee431> tty_read+0x5d/0x9f
  <b014bc1d> vfs_read+0xa3/0x13a   <b014c5cc> sys_read+0x3b/0x64
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 sshd          S 0F518240     0  5760   3778  5762    5787  3887 (NOTLB)
        effd1b60 058431d4 00000127 0f518240 00000000 00000000 00000000 b011bdf9 
        dfbba648 dfbba540 b02b0480 b200c340 61511d00 000f966c 00000000 00000001 
        effd1b54 b0111803 00000000 00000000 00000003 00000046 f7d6200c 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b011bdf9> __do_softirq+0x57/0xc0   <b0111803> __wake_up+0x29/0x3c
  <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b   <b01ee160> tty_poll+0x4a/0x54
  <b015baca> do_select+0x3b6/0x41e   <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b0226a72> qdisc_restart+0x14/0x17f   <b021aff9> dev_queue_xmit+0x1e5/0x1eb
  <b02377ea> ip_output+0x1c0/0x1f6   <b023717e> ip_queue_xmit+0x34d/0x38f
  <b021b373> netif_receive_skb+0x22c/0x24a   <f89008a0> tg3_poll+0x5e8/0x643 [tg3]
  <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f   <b011f2c3> __mod_timer+0x90/0x98
  <b0213117> sk_reset_timer+0x12/0x1e   <b0243dea> update_send_head+0x7a/0x80
  <b02468c8> __tcp_push_pending_frames+0x68f/0x74b   <b0104a5b> do_IRQ+0x22/0x2b
  <b0215457> __alloc_skb+0x4a/0xee   <b02133db> release_sock+0xf/0x97
  <b023d9ae> tcp_sendmsg+0x8ab/0x985   <b015bd1a> core_sys_select+0x1e8/0x2a2
  <b0211077> do_sock_write+0xa4/0xad   <b0211625> sock_aio_write+0x56/0x63
  <b014b99a> do_sync_write+0xc0/0xf3   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
  <b015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166   <b014c630> sys_write+0x3b/0x64
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 bash          S 068E7780     0  5762   5760  6115               (NOTLB)
        d3b45f54 b013d869 b1d3cc80 068e7780 00000000 00000000 dfeb9740 b1d3cc80 
        dffbf138 dffbf030 dfbc7a50 b200c340 68f58540 000f9654 00000000 00000000 
        bfdb9080 b134470c 69e64065 f7d6f574 0000001d 000003d8 f789ee00 aff805a4 
 Call Trace:
  <b013d869> do_wp_page+0x268/0x286   <b011a7cd> do_wait+0x8ab/0x94d
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011a896> sys_wait4+0x27/0x2a
  <b011a8ac> sys_waitpid+0x13/0x17   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 sshd          S 08C30AC0     0  5787   3778  5789          5760 (NOTLB)
        b5dbfb60 f792d2e0 000005ea 08c30ac0 00000000 00000000 a4ab0bc0 000f966b 
        dfbc2648 dfbc2540 b02b0480 b200c340 a5ccf680 000f966b 00000000 00000001 
        b5dbfb54 b0111803 00000000 00000000 00000003 00000046 dcd5400c 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b0111803> __wake_up+0x29/0x3c   <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b
  <b01ee160> tty_poll+0x4a/0x54   <b015baca> do_select+0x3b6/0x41e
  <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15   <b0226a72> qdisc_restart+0x14/0x17f
  <b021aff9> dev_queue_xmit+0x1e5/0x1eb   <b02377ea> ip_output+0x1c0/0x1f6
  <b023717e> ip_queue_xmit+0x34d/0x38f   <b011bdf9> __do_softirq+0x57/0xc0
  <b010314c> apic_timer_interrupt+0x1c/0x24   <b0244573> tcp_transmit_skb+0x5dc/0x600
  <b02468c8> __tcp_push_pending_frames+0x68f/0x74b   <b0215457> __alloc_skb+0x4a/0xee
  <b02133db> release_sock+0xf/0x97   <b023d9ae> tcp_sendmsg+0x8ab/0x985
  <b015bd1a> core_sys_select+0x1e8/0x2a2   <b0211077> do_sock_write+0xa4/0xad
  <b0211625> sock_aio_write+0x56/0x63   <b014b99a> do_sync_write+0xc0/0xf3
  <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a   <b015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166
  <b014c630> sys_write+0x3b/0x64   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 bash          S 055D4A80     0  5789   5787                     (NOTLB)
        de097edc b01ecee7 00000000 055d4a80 00000000 0001b207 a5ccf680 000f966b 
        dfbc2b58 dfbc2a50 dfbc2540 b200c340 a5ccf680 000f966b 00000000 00000000 
        00000000 de097f14 dfbc2a50 de097fbc b200c380 f7f3f580 f7f3f6d8 f7f3f6c4 
 Call Trace:
  <b01ecee7> tty_ldisc_deref+0x52/0x61   <b01216d0> get_signal_to_deliver+0x1c0/0x372
  <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b   <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30
  <b01f2383> read_chan+0x321/0x53e   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <b01ee431> tty_read+0x5d/0x9f   <b014bc1d> vfs_read+0xa3/0x13a
  <b014c5cc> sys_read+0x3b/0x64   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 pdflush       D 37E8BE80     0  5842     11          6085  3699 (L-TLB)
        c7803eec b1bfa900 b1bfa920 37e8be80 00000000 00000000 fc4c7fab 000f9668 
        dfe67688 dfe67580 b21a0540 b2014340 805ef140 000f966c 00000001 00000000 
        00000286 b011e999 00000286 b011e999 c7803efc c7803efc 00000286 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
  <b026fd89> schedule_timeout+0x6c/0x8b   <b011ecff> process_timeout+0x0/0x9
  <b026ebf5> io_schedule_timeout+0x29/0x33   <b01387eb> pdflush+0x0/0x1b5
  <b01a0a1d> blk_congestion_wait+0x55/0x69   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
  <b0137f01> background_writeout+0x7d/0x8b   <b01388ee> pdflush+0x103/0x1b5
  <b0137e84> background_writeout+0x0/0x8b   <b01271a1> kthread+0xa3/0xd0
  <b01270fe> kthread+0x0/0xd0   <b0100bc5> kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb
 syslogd       S 029F6300     0  5964      1          6051  3864 (NOTLB)
        c8d39b60 f88df961 c2e1aed8 029f6300 00000000 00000000 f7c7c260 00001000 
        dffbd178 dffbd070 b02b0480 b200c340 baf35680 000f9666 00000000 00000000 
        b013595f dffe2340 00011200 b733848c 00000246 b01273fc df9d4680 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <f88df961> ext3_mark_iloc_dirty+0x2df/0x345 [ext3]   <b013595f> mempool_alloc+0x21/0xbf
  <b01273fc> add_wait_queue+0x12/0x30   <b026fd30> schedule_timeout+0x13/0x8b
  <b02112c0> sock_poll+0x13/0x17   <b015baca> do_select+0x3b6/0x41e
  <b015b65c> __pollwait+0x0/0xb8   <b011357b> default_wake_function+0x0/0x15
  <f887355d> __journal_file_buffer+0x111/0x1e7 [jbd]   <f8874995> do_get_write_access+0x44a/0x45c [jbd]
  <f887355d> __journal_file_buffer+0x111/0x1e7 [jbd]   <f8874df9> journal_dirty_metadata+0x173/0x19e [jbd]
  <b013595f> mempool_alloc+0x21/0xbf   <b013595f> mempool_alloc+0x21/0xbf
  <b01a543b> as_set_request+0x1c/0x6d   <b01a5a45> as_update_iohist+0x38/0x2a5
  <b01a63ee> as_add_request+0xc0/0xef   <b019ea34> elv_insert+0x9b/0x138
  <b01a27e6> __make_request+0x319/0x350   <b01342a3> generic_file_buffered_write+0x482/0x56f
  <b01a0268> generic_make_request+0x168/0x17a   <b013595f> mempool_alloc+0x21/0xbf
  <b01a0ad6> submit_bio+0xa5/0xaa   <b015bd1a> core_sys_select+0x1e8/0x2a2
  <b0133749> wait_on_page_writeback_range+0xb3/0xf7   <b011f676> __sigqueue_free+0x2a/0x2f
  <b0120981> __dequeue_signal+0x14b/0x156   <b01053b7> do_gettimeofday+0x1b/0x9d
  <b01053b7> do_gettimeofday+0x1b/0x9d   <b011b6ba> getnstimeofday+0xf/0x25
  <b01acb36> rb_insert_color+0xa6/0xc8   <b01294f4> enqueue_hrtimer+0x58/0x7f
  <b012996a> hrtimer_start+0xc5/0xd0   <b011abdd> do_setitimer+0x16c/0x47d
  <b015c0ca> sys_select+0x9a/0x166   <b0101fc0> sys_sigreturn+0x98/0xbd
  <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb  
 klogd         R running     0  6051      1                5964 (NOTLB)
 pdflush       D 0E205540     0  6085     11          6130  5842 (L-TLB)
        b4d01eec f792d280 00000204 0e205540 00000000 00000000 ad7d58c0 000f966b 
        dffbbb58 dffbba50 b21a0540 b2014340 7e1b1bc0 000f966c 00000001 00000000 
        00000286 b011e999 00000286 b011e999 b4d01efc b4d01efc 00000286 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
  <b026fd89> schedule_timeout+0x6c/0x8b   <b011ecff> process_timeout+0x0/0x9
  <b026ebf5> io_schedule_timeout+0x29/0x33   <b01387eb> pdflush+0x0/0x1b5
  <b01a0a1d> blk_congestion_wait+0x55/0x69   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
  <b0137f01> background_writeout+0x7d/0x8b   <b01388ee> pdflush+0x103/0x1b5
  <b0137e84> background_writeout+0x0/0x8b   <b01271a1> kthread+0xa3/0xd0
  <b01270fe> kthread+0x0/0xd0   <b0100bc5> kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb
 ncftpget      D 568FC100     0  6115   5762                     (NOTLB)
        cb351a88 87280008 b013595f 568fc100 00000008 00051615 f2a64c80 b21cc340 
        dfbc7b58 dfbc7a50 b02b0480 b200c340 77405900 000f966c 00000000 00000282 
        b011e999 f2a64cd8 00000000 dfec8b84 00000000 dfec8b84 b01a216b 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b013595f> mempool_alloc+0x21/0xbf   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
  <b01a216b> get_request+0x55/0x283   <b026f9b5> io_schedule+0x26/0x30
  <b01a2432> get_request_wait+0x99/0xd3   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
  <b01a2786> __make_request+0x2b9/0x350   <b01a0268> generic_make_request+0x168/0x17a
  <b013595f> mempool_alloc+0x21/0xbf   <b01a0ad6> submit_bio+0xa5/0xaa
  <b015032c> bio_alloc+0x13/0x22   <b014dad0> submit_bh+0xe6/0x107
  <b014f9d9> __block_write_full_page+0x20e/0x301   <f88e17e8> ext3_get_block+0x0/0xad [ext3]
  <f88e0633> ext3_ordered_writepage+0xcb/0x137 [ext3]   <f88e17e8> ext3_get_block+0x0/0xad [ext3]
  <f88def99> bget_one+0x0/0xb [ext3]   <b016a1d3> mpage_writepages+0x193/0x2e9
  <f88e0568> ext3_ordered_writepage+0x0/0x137 [ext3]   <b013813f> do_writepages+0x30/0x39
  <b0168988> __writeback_single_inode+0x166/0x2e2   <b01aa9d3> __next_cpu+0x11/0x20
  <b0136421> read_page_state_offset+0x33/0x41   <b0168f5e> sync_sb_inodes+0x185/0x23a
  <b01691c6> writeback_inodes+0x6e/0xbb   <b0138246> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr+0xcb/0x152
  <b013429e> generic_file_buffered_write+0x47d/0x56f   <f88e698a> __ext3_journal_stop+0x19/0x37 [ext3]
  <f88dfde0> ext3_dirty_inode+0x5e/0x64 [ext3]   <b0168b4c> __mark_inode_dirty+0x28/0x14c
  <b01354da> __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x3c8/0x405   <b0211c91> sock_aio_read+0x56/0x63
  <b013573c> generic_file_aio_write+0x61/0xb3   <f88dde72> ext3_file_write+0x26/0x92 [ext3]
  <b014b99a> do_sync_write+0xc0/0xf3   <b016201a> notify_change+0x2d4/0x2e5
  <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a   <b014bdb0> vfs_write+0xa3/0x13a
  <b014c630> sys_write+0x3b/0x64   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb
 pdflush       D 00F42400     0  6130     11          6146  6085 (L-TLB)
        f57ddeec b1964a00 b1fdf940 00f42400 00000000 00000000 b1c75ca0 b1f29320 
        dfb75648 dfb75540 b21a0540 b2014340 7b01a6c0 000f966c 00000001 00000000 
        00000286 b011e999 00000286 b011e999 f57ddefc f57ddefc 00000286 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
  <b026fd89> schedule_timeout+0x6c/0x8b   <b011ecff> process_timeout+0x0/0x9
  <b026ebf5> io_schedule_timeout+0x29/0x33   <b01387eb> pdflush+0x0/0x1b5
  <b01a0a1d> blk_congestion_wait+0x55/0x69   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
  <b0137f01> background_writeout+0x7d/0x8b   <b01388ee> pdflush+0x103/0x1b5
  <b0137e84> background_writeout+0x0/0x8b   <b01271a1> kthread+0xa3/0xd0
  <b01270fe> kthread+0x0/0xd0   <b0100bc5> kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb
 pdflush       D 004C4B40     0  6146     11          6156  6130 (L-TLB)
        dec91eec 00000001 b02f20e0 004c4b40 00000000 00000000 00000000 b02f20e0 
        dfb80178 dfb80070 b21a0540 b2014340 7b8afb00 000f966c 00000001 00000000 
        00000286 b011e999 00000286 b011e999 dec91efc dec91efc 00000286 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
  <b026fd89> schedule_timeout+0x6c/0x8b   <b011ecff> process_timeout+0x0/0x9
  <b026ebf5> io_schedule_timeout+0x29/0x33   <b01387eb> pdflush+0x0/0x1b5
  <b01a0a1d> blk_congestion_wait+0x55/0x69   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
  <b0137f01> background_writeout+0x7d/0x8b   <b01388ee> pdflush+0x103/0x1b5
  <b0137e84> background_writeout+0x0/0x8b   <b01271a1> kthread+0xa3/0xd0
  <b01270fe> kthread+0x0/0xd0   <b0100bc5> kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb
 pdflush       D 04B571C0     0  6156     11          6168  6146 (L-TLB)
        d959feec b1b7c500 b1f0e020 04b571c0 00000000 00000000 14c754c0 000f9669 
        dff15b98 dff15a90 b21a0540 b2014340 7b10e900 000f966c 00000001 00000000 
        00000286 b011e999 00000286 b011e999 d959fefc d959fefc 00000286 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
  <b026fd89> schedule_timeout+0x6c/0x8b   <b011ecff> process_timeout+0x0/0x9
  <b026ebf5> io_schedule_timeout+0x29/0x33   <b01387eb> pdflush+0x0/0x1b5
  <b01a0a1d> blk_congestion_wait+0x55/0x69   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
  <b0137f01> background_writeout+0x7d/0x8b   <b01388ee> pdflush+0x103/0x1b5
  <b0137e84> background_writeout+0x0/0x8b   <b01271a1> kthread+0xa3/0xd0
  <b01270fe> kthread+0x0/0xd0   <b0100bc5> kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb
 pdflush       D 000F4240     0  6168     11                6156 (L-TLB)
        caa13eec 0000000a b23ec9cc 000f4240 00000000 00000000 b01117b5 ebb31f74 
        b21dd178 b21dd070 b21a0540 b2014340 7ee17900 000f966c 00000001 00000000 
        00000286 b011e999 00000286 b011e999 caa13efc caa13efc 00000286 00000000 
 Call Trace:
  <b01117b5> __wake_up_common+0x2a/0x4f   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
  <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f   <b026fd89> schedule_timeout+0x6c/0x8b
  <b011ecff> process_timeout+0x0/0x9   <b026ebf5> io_schedule_timeout+0x29/0x33
  <b01387eb> pdflush+0x0/0x1b5   <b01a0a1d> blk_congestion_wait+0x55/0x69
  <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a   <b0137f01> background_writeout+0x7d/0x8b
  <b01388ee> pdflush+0x103/0x1b5   <b0137e84> background_writeout+0x0/0x8b
  <b01271a1> kthread+0xa3/0xd0   <b01270fe> kthread+0x0/0xd0
  <b0100bc5> kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb  

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Robert Hancock]

Jason Schoonover wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> I did started a ncftpget and managed to get 6 pdflush processes running in 
> state D, hopefully this will give us a chance to debug it.
> 
> I've attached the entire Alt+SysReq+T output here because I have no idea how 
> to read it.

Well, I think the relevant parts would be:

>  pdflush       D 37E8BE80     0  5842     11          6085  3699 (L-TLB)
>         c7803eec b1bfa900 b1bfa920 37e8be80 00000000 00000000 fc4c7fab 000f9668 
>         dfe67688 dfe67580 b21a0540 b2014340 805ef140 000f966c 00000001 00000000 
>         00000286 b011e999 00000286 b011e999 c7803efc c7803efc 00000286 00000000 
>  Call Trace:
>   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
>   <b026fd89> schedule_timeout+0x6c/0x8b   <b011ecff> process_timeout+0x0/0x9
>   <b026ebf5> io_schedule_timeout+0x29/0x33   <b01387eb> pdflush+0x0/0x1b5
>   <b01a0a1d> blk_congestion_wait+0x55/0x69   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
>   <b0137f01> background_writeout+0x7d/0x8b   <b01388ee> pdflush+0x103/0x1b5
>   <b0137e84> background_writeout+0x0/0x8b   <b01271a1> kthread+0xa3/0xd0
>   <b01270fe> kthread+0x0/0xd0   <b0100bc5> kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb
>  ncftpget      D 568FC100     0  6115   5762                     (NOTLB)
>         cb351a88 87280008 b013595f 568fc100 00000008 00051615 f2a64c80 b21cc340 
>         dfbc7b58 dfbc7a50 b02b0480 b200c340 77405900 000f966c 00000000 00000282 
>         b011e999 f2a64cd8 00000000 dfec8b84 00000000 dfec8b84 b01a216b 00000000 
>  Call Trace:
>   <b013595f> mempool_alloc+0x21/0xbf   <b011e999> lock_timer_base+0x15/0x2f
>   <b01a216b> get_request+0x55/0x283   <b026f9b5> io_schedule+0x26/0x30
>   <b01a2432> get_request_wait+0x99/0xd3   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
>   <b01a2786> __make_request+0x2b9/0x350   <b01a0268> generic_make_request+0x168/0x17a
>   <b013595f> mempool_alloc+0x21/0xbf   <b01a0ad6> submit_bio+0xa5/0xaa
>   <b015032c> bio_alloc+0x13/0x22   <b014dad0> submit_bh+0xe6/0x107
>   <b014f9d9> __block_write_full_page+0x20e/0x301   <f88e17e8> ext3_get_block+0x0/0xad [ext3]
>   <f88e0633> ext3_ordered_writepage+0xcb/0x137 [ext3]   <f88e17e8> ext3_get_block+0x0/0xad [ext3]
>   <f88def99> bget_one+0x0/0xb [ext3]   <b016a1d3> mpage_writepages+0x193/0x2e9
>   <f88e0568> ext3_ordered_writepage+0x0/0x137 [ext3]   <b013813f> do_writepages+0x30/0x39
>   <b0168988> __writeback_single_inode+0x166/0x2e2   <b01aa9d3> __next_cpu+0x11/0x20
>   <b0136421> read_page_state_offset+0x33/0x41   <b0168f5e> sync_sb_inodes+0x185/0x23a
>   <b01691c6> writeback_inodes+0x6e/0xbb   <b0138246> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr+0xcb/0x152
>   <b013429e> generic_file_buffered_write+0x47d/0x56f   <f88e698a> __ext3_journal_stop+0x19/0x37 [ext3]
>   <f88dfde0> ext3_dirty_inode+0x5e/0x64 [ext3]   <b0168b4c> __mark_inode_dirty+0x28/0x14c
>   <b01354da> __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x3c8/0x405   <b0211c91> sock_aio_read+0x56/0x63
>   <b013573c> generic_file_aio_write+0x61/0xb3   <f88dde72> ext3_file_write+0x26/0x92 [ext3]
>   <b014b99a> do_sync_write+0xc0/0xf3   <b016201a> notify_change+0x2d4/0x2e5
>   <b01271dc> autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a   <b014bdb0> vfs_write+0xa3/0x13a
>   <b014c630> sys_write+0x3b/0x64   <b010267b> syscall_call+0x7/0xb

It looks like the pdflush threads are sitting in uninterruptible sleep 
waiting for a block queue to become uncongested. This seems somewhat 
reasonable to me in this situation, but someone more familiar with the 
block layer would likely have to comment on whether this is the expected 
behavior..

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[bert hubert]

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:10:19AM -0700, Jason Schoonover wrote:

> Whenever I copy any large file (over 500GB) the load average starts to slowly 
> rise and after about a minute it is up to 7.5 and keeps on rising (depending 
> on how long the file takes to copy).  When I watch top, the processes at the 
> top of the list are cp, pdflush, kjournald and kswapd.

Load average is a bit of an odd metric in this case, try looking at the
output from 'vmstat 1', and especially the 'id' column. As long as that
doesn't rise, you don't have an actual problem.

The number of processes in the runqueue doesn't really tell you anything
about how much CPU you are using.

Having said that, I think there might be a problem to be solved.

	Bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Open source, database driven DNS Software 
http://netherlabs.nl              Open and Closed source services

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Jason Schoonover]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1527 bytes --]

Hi Bert,

That's interesting, I didn't know that about the vmstat command, I will 
definitely use that more in the future.  I went ahead and did an ncftpget and 
started vmstat 1 at the same time, I've attached the output here.  It looks 
like the 'id' column was at 100, and then as soon as I started ncftpget, it 
went down to 0 the whole time.

The interesting thing was that after I did a Ctrl-C on the ncftpget, the id 
column was still at 0, even though the ncftpget process was over.  The id 
column was at 0 and the 'wa' column was at 98, up until all of the pdflush 
processes ended.

Is that the expected behavior?

Jason

-------Original Message-----
From: bert hubert
Sent: Saturday 06 May 2006 16:03
To: Jason Schoonover
Subject: Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:10:19AM -0700, Jason Schoonover wrote:
> Whenever I copy any large file (over 500GB) the load average starts to
> slowly rise and after about a minute it is up to 7.5 and keeps on rising
> (depending on how long the file takes to copy).  When I watch top, the
> processes at the top of the list are cp, pdflush, kjournald and kswapd.

Load average is a bit of an odd metric in this case, try looking at the
output from 'vmstat 1', and especially the 'id' column. As long as that
doesn't rise, you don't have an actual problem.

The number of processes in the runqueue doesn't really tell you anything
about how much CPU you are using.

Having said that, I think there might be a problem to be solved.

	Bert

[-- Attachment #2: vmstat-1.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3476 bytes --]

procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu----
 r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in    cs us sy id wa
 0  0     40 1991860   9444  14900    0    0    57   136  148     8  0  0 98  1
 0  0     40 1991860   9452  14892    0    0     0   372 1048    24  0  0 100  0
 0  0     40 1991860   9464  14880    0    0     4    36 1051    75  0  0 100  1
 0  0     40 1991860   9464  14880    0    0     0     0 1032    52  0  0 100  0
 0  0     40 1991860   9464  14880    0    0     0     0 1033    42  0  0 100  0
 1  0     40 1971532   9536  35480    0    0   236     0 4944   401  1 10 87  4
 1  0     40 1891056   9620 114616    0    0     4   176 17382   276  1 35 65  0
 1  1     40 1805372   9712 198232    0    0     4 48784 18660   285  1 38 52  9
 1  3     40 1723160   9792 279208    0    0     0 70868 18481   318  1 39 19 43
 0  4     40 1704684   9812 297344    0    0     4 16480 4864   127  0  8  0 92
 1  3     40 1657068   9860 344148    0    0     0 18040 10767   245  0 21  0 78
 0  2     40 1581072   9940 420636    0    0     0  2436 16886   332  1 40 17 43
 1  4     40 1521800  10000 477152    0    0     4 34660 12934   306  0 30 12 58
 1  4     40 1441696  10076 554936    0    0     0 26912 17277   338  0 35  0 64
 0  4     40 1399660  10120 595760    0    0     4 31944 9725   251  0 19  0 81
 1  4     40 1326128  10192 667292    0    0     0 34668 15984   339  1 33  0 67
 1  4     40 1273056  10244 718648    0    0     4 35376 11855   266  0 24  0 76
 1  4     40 1190968  10324 798468    0    0     0 10228 17557   357  1 35  5 59
 1  4     40 1112724  10396 874624    0    0     0 27844 16982   376  1 34  5 61
 0  5     40 1044168  10468 941668    0    0     4 32492 15184   346  0 30  2 67
 1  4     40 997668  10512 986912    0    0     0 22632 10538   244  1 22  0 78
 0  4     40 926120  10576 1056344    0    0     0 13724 15436   332  1 34  0 65
 1  5     40 889656  10628 1094712    0    0     4 28000 9218   285  0 22  5 74
 0  6     40 859028  10660 1124600    0    0     0 13768 7295   196  0 15  0 84
 0  7     40 833856  10684 1148852    0    0     0 12324 6169   165  0 12  0 88

 Did a Ctrl-C here

 0  2     40  47312   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36452 1353    52  0  2 39 60
 0  2     40  47816   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36264 1354    56  0  1  0 99
 0  2     40  48312   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36248 1362    52  0  1  0 99
 0  2     40  48808   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36040 1362    56  0  1  0 99
 0  2     40  49180   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36592 1360    54  0  2  0 99
 0  2     40  49552   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36064 1355    56  0  2  0 98
 0  2     40  50048   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36576 1360    54  0  2  0 99
 0  2     40  50544   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36340 1351    57  0  1  0 99
 0  2     40  51040   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36164 1352    51  0  2  0 99
 0  2     40  51412   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36044 1367    57  0  1  0 99
 0  2     40  51908   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36204 1359    51  0  1  0 99
 0  2     40  52404   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36012 1363    55  0  2  0 99
 0  2     40  52776   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36280 1362    68  0  1  0 99
 0  2     40  53140   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36236 1395   251  0  2  0 98
 0  2     40  53760   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36316 1359    53  0  2  0 99
 0  2     40  54504   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36468 1356    55  0  2  0 98

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[bert hubert]

On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 06:02:47PM -0700, Jason Schoonover wrote:

> The interesting thing was that after I did a Ctrl-C on the ncftpget, the id 
> column was still at 0, even though the ncftpget process was over.  The id 
> column was at 0 and the 'wa' column was at 98, up until all of the pdflush 
> processes ended.
> 
> Is that the expected behavior?

Yes - data is still being written out. 'wa' stands for waiting for io. As
long as 'us' and 'sy' are not 100 (together), your system ('computing
power') is not 'busy'.

The lines below are perfect:
>  0  2     40  47816   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36264 1354    56  0  1  0 99
>  0  2     40  48312   7888 1920116    0    0     0 36248 1362    52  0  1  0 99

Wether you should have 5 pdflushes running is something I have no relevant
experience about, but your system should function just fine during writeout.

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Open source, database driven DNS Software 
http://netherlabs.nl              Open and Closed source services

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 10:10:19 -0700
Jason Schoonover <jasons@pioneer-pra.com> wrote:

> I'm having some problems on the latest 2.6.17-rc3 kernel and SCSI disk I/O.  
> Whenever I copy any large file (over 500GB) the load average starts to slowly 
> rise and after about a minute it is up to 7.5 and keeps on rising (depending 
> on how long the file takes to copy).  When I watch top, the processes at the 
> top of the list are cp, pdflush, kjournald and kswapd.

This is probably because the number of pdflush threads slowly grows to its
maximum.  This is bogus, and we seem to have broken it sometime in the past
few releases.  I need to find a few quality hours to get in there and fix
it, but they're rare :(

It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
significant resources.

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Jason Schoonover]

Hi Andrew,

I see, so it sounds as though the load average is not telling the true load of 
the machine.  However, it still feels that it's consuming quite a bit of 
resources.  The machine is almost unresponsive if I were to start two or 
three copies at the same time.

I noticed the behavior initially when I installed vmware server: I started one 
of the vm's booting and was copying another in the background (about a 12GB 
directory).  The booting VM would started getting slower and slower and 
eventually just hung.  It wasn't locked up, just seemed like it was "paused."   
When I tried an "ls" in another window, it just hung.  I then tried to ssh 
into the server to open another window and I couldn't even get an ssh prompt.  
I had to eventually Ctrl-C the copy and wait for it to be done before I could 
do anything.  And the load average had skyrocketed, but the consensus here is 
definitely that it's not the true load average of the system.

Possibly should I revert back to an older kernel?  2.6.12 or 2.6.10 maybe?  Do 
you know when abouts the I/O was changed?

I can certainly help debug this issue if you (or someone else) has the time to 
look into it and fix it.  Otherwise I will just revert back and hope that it 
will get fixed in the future.

Thanks,
Jason


-------Original Message-----
From: Andrew Morton
Sent: Sunday 07 May 2006 09:50
To: Jason Schoonover
Subject: Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

On Fri, 5 May 2006 10:10:19 -0700

Jason Schoonover <jasons@pioneer-pra.com> wrote:
> I'm having some problems on the latest 2.6.17-rc3 kernel and SCSI disk I/O.
> Whenever I copy any large file (over 500GB) the load average starts to
> slowly rise and after about a minute it is up to 7.5 and keeps on rising
> (depending on how long the file takes to copy).  When I watch top, the
> processes at the top of the list are cp, pdflush, kjournald and kswapd.

This is probably because the number of pdflush threads slowly grows to its
maximum.  This is bogus, and we seem to have broken it sometime in the past
few releases.  I need to find a few quality hours to get in there and fix
it, but they're rare :(

It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
significant resources.

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Erik Mouw]

On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 09:50:39AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> This is probably because the number of pdflush threads slowly grows to its
> maximum.  This is bogus, and we seem to have broken it sometime in the past
> few releases.  I need to find a few quality hours to get in there and fix
> it, but they're rare :(
> 
> It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
> extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
> they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
> significant resources.

Not completely harmless. Some daemons (sendmail, exim) use the load
average to decide if they will allow more work. A local user could
create a mail DoS by just copying a couple of large files around.
Zeniv.linux.org.uk mail went down due to this. See
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/3/28/70 .


Erik

-- 
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 13:13 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 09:50:39AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This is probably because the number of pdflush threads slowly grows to its
> > maximum.  This is bogus, and we seem to have broken it sometime in the past
> > few releases.  I need to find a few quality hours to get in there and fix
> > it, but they're rare :(
> > 
> > It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
> > extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
> > they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
> > significant resources.
> 
> Not completely harmless. Some daemons (sendmail, exim) use the load
> average to decide if they will allow more work.

and those need to be fixed most likely ;)

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Russell King]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 01:22:36PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 13:13 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 09:50:39AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > This is probably because the number of pdflush threads slowly grows to its
> > > maximum.  This is bogus, and we seem to have broken it sometime in the past
> > > few releases.  I need to find a few quality hours to get in there and fix
> > > it, but they're rare :(
> > > 
> > > It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
> > > extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
> > > they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
> > > significant resources.
> > 
> > Not completely harmless. Some daemons (sendmail, exim) use the load
> > average to decide if they will allow more work.
> 
> and those need to be fixed most likely ;)

Why do you think that?  exim uses the load average to work out whether
it's a good idea to spawn more copies of itself, and increase the load
on the machine.

Unfortunately though, under 2.6 kernels, the load average seems to be
a meaningless indication of how busy the system is from that point of
view.

Having a single CPU machine with a load average of 150 and still feel
very interactive at the shell is extremely counter-intuitive.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Avi Kivity]

Russell King wrote:
> Why do you think that?  exim uses the load average to work out whether
> it's a good idea to spawn more copies of itself, and increase the load
> on the machine.
>
> Unfortunately though, under 2.6 kernels, the load average seems to be
> a meaningless indication of how busy the system is from that point of
> view.
>
> Having a single CPU machine with a load average of 150 and still feel
> very interactive at the shell is extremely counter-intuitive.
>   

It's even worse: load average used to mean the number of runnable 
processes + number of processes waiting on disk or NFS I/O to complete, 
a fairly bogus measure as you have noted, but with the aio interfaces 
one can issue enormous amounts of I/O without it being counted in the 
load average.

To make such decisions real, one needs separate counters for cpu load 
and for disk load on the devices one is actually using.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 12:28 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 01:22:36PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 13:13 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 09:50:39AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > This is probably because the number of pdflush threads slowly grows to its
> > > > maximum.  This is bogus, and we seem to have broken it sometime in the past
> > > > few releases.  I need to find a few quality hours to get in there and fix
> > > > it, but they're rare :(
> > > > 
> > > > It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
> > > > extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
> > > > they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
> > > > significant resources.
> > > 
> > > Not completely harmless. Some daemons (sendmail, exim) use the load
> > > average to decide if they will allow more work.
> > 
> > and those need to be fixed most likely ;)
> 
> Why do you think that? 

I think that because the characteristics of modern hardware don't make
"load" a good estimator for finding out if the hardware can take more
jobs.

To explain why I'm thinking this I first need to do an ascii art graph

100
% |             ************************|
b |         ****
u |      ***
s |    **
y |   *
  |  *
  | *
  |*
  +------------------------------------------
       -> workload

on the Y axis is the percentage in use, on the horizontal axis the
amount of work that is done. (in the mail case, say emails per second).
Modern hardware has an initial ramp-up which is near linear in terms of
workload/use, but then a saturation area is reached at 100% where, even
though a system is 100% busy, more work can be added, upto a certain
point that I showed with a "|". This is due to the behavior of increased
batching that you get at higher utilization compared to the behavior at
lower utilizations. Both cpu caches, memory burst speeds-vs-latency, but
also disk streaming performance vs random seeks... all those will create
and increase this saturation space to the right. And all of those have
been increasing in the hardware the last 4+ years, with the result that
the saturation "reach" has increased to the right as well, by far.

How does this tie into "load" and using load for what exim/sendmail use
it for? Well.... Today "load" is a somewhat poor approximation of this
percentage-in-use[1], but... as per the graph and argument above, even
if it was a perfect representation of that, it still would not be a good
measure to determine if a system can do more work (per time unit) or
not.

[1] I didn't discuss the use of *what*; in reality that is a combination
of cpu, memory, disk and possibly network resources. Load tries to
combine cpu and disk into one number via a sheer addition; that's an
obviously rough estimate and I'm not arguing that it's not rough.


> Having a single CPU machine with a load average of 150 and still feel
> very interactive at the shell is extremely counter-intuitive.

Well it's also a sign that the cpu scheduler is prioritizing your shell
over the background "menial" work ;)

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Martin J. Bligh]

> It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
> extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
> they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
> significant resources.

If they're waiting on disk I/O, they shouldn't be runnable, and thus
should not be counted as part of the load average, surely?

M.

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 07:24 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
> > extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
> > they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
> > significant resources.
> 
> If they're waiting on disk I/O, they shouldn't be runnable, and thus
> should not be counted as part of the load average, surely?

yes they are, since at least a decade. "load average" != "cpu
utilisation" by any means. It's "tasks waiting for a hardware resource
to become available". CPU is one such resource (runnable) but disk is
another. There are more ... 

think of load as "if I bought faster hardware this would improve"

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Erik Mouw]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:55:48PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 07:24 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > > It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
> > > extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
> > > they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
> > > significant resources.
> > 
> > If they're waiting on disk I/O, they shouldn't be runnable, and thus
> > should not be counted as part of the load average, surely?
> 
> yes they are, since at least a decade. "load average" != "cpu
> utilisation" by any means. It's "tasks waiting for a hardware resource
> to become available". CPU is one such resource (runnable) but disk is
> another. There are more ... 

... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
IO. Load average has always been somewhat related to tasks contending
for CPU power. It's easy to say "shrug, it changed, live with it", but
at least give applications that want to be nice to the system a way to
figure out the real cpu load.


Erik

-- 
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Martin J. Bligh]

Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:55:48PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 07:24 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>
>>>>It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
>>>>extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
>>>>they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
>>>>significant resources.
>>>
>>>If they're waiting on disk I/O, they shouldn't be runnable, and thus
>>>should not be counted as part of the load average, surely?
>>
>>yes they are, since at least a decade. "load average" != "cpu
>>utilisation" by any means. It's "tasks waiting for a hardware resource
>>to become available". CPU is one such resource (runnable) but disk is
>>another. There are more ... 
> 
> 
> ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
> IO. Load average has always been somewhat related to tasks contending
> for CPU power. It's easy to say "shrug, it changed, live with it", but
> at least give applications that want to be nice to the system a way to
> figure out the real cpu load.

I had a patch to create a real, per-cpu load average. I guess I'll dig
it out again, since it was also extremely useful for diagnosing
scheduler issues.

Maybe I'm confused about what the loadavg figure in Linux was in 2.6,
I'll go read the code again. Not sure it's very useful to provide only
a combined figure of all waiting tasks without separated versions as
well, really.

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:22 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:55:48PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 07:24 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > > > It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
> > > > extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
> > > > they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
> > > > significant resources.
> > > 
> > > If they're waiting on disk I/O, they shouldn't be runnable, and thus
> > > should not be counted as part of the load average, surely?
> > 
> > yes they are, since at least a decade. "load average" != "cpu
> > utilisation" by any means. It's "tasks waiting for a hardware resource
> > to become available". CPU is one such resource (runnable) but disk is
> > another. There are more ... 
> 
> ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
> IO.

they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Erik Mouw]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:31:29PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:22 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
> > IO.
> 
> they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.

They did not or at least to a much lesser extent. That's the reason why
ZenIV.linux.org.uk had a mail DoS during the last FC release and why we
see load average questions on lkml.

I've seen it on our servers as well: when using 2.4 and doing 50 MB/s
to disk (through NFS), the load just was slightly above 0. When we
switched the servers to 2.6 it went to ~16 for the same disk usage.


Erik

-- 
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Martin J. Bligh]

Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:31:29PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:22 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
>>
>>>... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
>>>IO.
>>
>>they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.
> 
> 
> They did not or at least to a much lesser extent. That's the reason why
> ZenIV.linux.org.uk had a mail DoS during the last FC release and why we
> see load average questions on lkml.
> 
> I've seen it on our servers as well: when using 2.4 and doing 50 MB/s
> to disk (through NFS), the load just was slightly above 0. When we
> switched the servers to 2.6 it went to ~16 for the same disk usage.

Looks like both count it, or something stranger is going on.

2.6.16:

static unsigned long count_active_tasks(void)
{
         return (nr_running() + nr_uninterruptible()) * FIXED_1;
}

2.4.0:

static unsigned long count_active_tasks(void)
{
         struct task_struct *p;
         unsigned long nr = 0;

         read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
         for_each_task(p) {
                 if ((p->state == TASK_RUNNING ||
                      (p->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)))
                         nr += FIXED_1;
         }
         read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
         return nr;
}

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Miquel van Smoorenburg]

In article <20060508154217.GH1875@harddisk-recovery.com>,
Erik Mouw  <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> wrote:
>On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:31:29PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:22 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
>> > ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
>> > IO.
>> 
>> they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.
>
>They did not or at least to a much lesser extent.

I just looked at the 2.4.9 (random 2.4 kernel) source code, and
kernel/timer.c::count_active_tasks(), which is what calculates the
load average, uses the same algorithm as in 2.6.16

Mike.

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Russell King]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:42:18PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:31:29PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:22 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > > ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
> > > IO.
> > 
> > they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.
> 
> They did not or at least to a much lesser extent. That's the reason why
> ZenIV.linux.org.uk had a mail DoS during the last FC release and why we
> see load average questions on lkml.
> 
> I've seen it on our servers as well: when using 2.4 and doing 50 MB/s
> to disk (through NFS), the load just was slightly above 0. When we
> switched the servers to 2.6 it went to ~16 for the same disk usage.

It's actually rather interesting to look at 2.6 and load averages.

The load average appears to depend on the type of load, rather than
the real load.  Let's look at three different cases:

1. while (1) { } loop in a C program.

   Starting off with a load average of 0.00 with a "watch uptime" running
   (and leaving that running for several minutes), then starting such a
   program, and letting it run for one minute.

   Result: load average at the end: 0.60

2. a program which runs continuously for 6 seconds and then sleeps for
   54 seconds.

   Result: load average peaks at 0.12, drops to 0.05 just before it
   runs for a second 6 second.

   ps initially reports 100% CPU usage, drops to 10% after one minute,
   rises to 18% and drops back towards 10%, and gradually settles on
   10%.

3. a program which runs for 1 second and then sleeps for 9 seconds.

   Result: load average peaks at 0.22, drops to 0.15 just before it
   runs for the next second.

   ps reports 10% CPU usage.

Okay, so, two different CPU work loads without any other IO, using the
same total amount of CPU time every minute seem to produce two very
different load averages.  In addition, using 100% CPU for one minute
does not produce a load average of 1.

Seems to me that somethings wrong somewhere.  Either that or the first
load average number no longer represents the load over the past one
minute.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Gabor Gombas]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:47:05PM +0100, Russell King wrote:

> Seems to me that somethings wrong somewhere.  Either that or the first
> load average number no longer represents the load over the past one
> minute.

... or just the load average statistics and the CPU usage statistics are
computed using different algorithms and they thus estimate different
things. At least the sampling frequency is surely different.

Gabor

-- 
     ---------------------------------------------------------
     MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
                Hungarian Academy of Sciences
     ---------------------------------------------------------

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Mike Galbraith]

On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:42 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:31:29PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:22 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > > ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
> > > IO.
> > 
> > they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.
> 
> They did not or at least to a much lesser extent. That's the reason why
> ZenIV.linux.org.uk had a mail DoS during the last FC release and why we
> see load average questions on lkml.

I distinctly recall it counting, but since I don't have a 2.4 tree
handy, I'll refrain from saying "did _too_" ;-)

> I've seen it on our servers as well: when using 2.4 and doing 50 MB/s
> to disk (through NFS), the load just was slightly above 0. When we
> switched the servers to 2.6 it went to ~16 for the same disk usage.

The main difference I see is...

8129 root      15   0  3500  512  432 D 56.0  0.0   0:33.72 bonnie
 1393 root      10  -5     0    0    0 D  0.4  0.0   0:00.26 kjournald
 8135 root      15   0     0    0    0 D  0.0  0.0   0:00.01 pdflush
  573 root      15   0     0    0    0 D  0.0  0.0   0:00.00 pdflush
  574 root      15   0     0    0    0 D  0.0  0.0   0:00.04 pdflush
 8131 root      15   0     0    0    0 D  0.0  0.0   0:00.01 pdflush
 8141 root      15   0     0    0    0 D  0.0  0.0   0:00.00 pdflush

With 2.4, there was only one flush thread.  Same load, different
loadavg... in this particular case of one user task running.  IIRC, if
you had a bunch of things running and running you low on memory, you
could end up with a slew of 'D' state tasks in 2.4 as well, because
allocating tasks had to help free memory by flushing buffers and pushing
swap.  Six to one, half a dozen to the other.

	-Mike

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Bernd Eckenfels]

Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> wrote:
> ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
> IO. Load average has always been somewhat related to tasks contending
> for CPU power.

Actually all Linux kernels accounted for diskwaits and others like BSD based
not. It is a very old linux oddness.

Gruss
Bernd

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Lee Revell]

On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:24 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> wrote:
> > ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
> > IO. Load average has always been somewhat related to tasks contending
> > for CPU power.
> 
> Actually all Linux kernels accounted for diskwaits and others like BSD based
> not. It is a very old linux oddness.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but IIRC BSD/OS also counted processes
waiting on IO towards the load average.

Lee

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Peter Williams]

Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> wrote:
>> ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
>> IO. Load average has always been somewhat related to tasks contending
>> for CPU power.
> 
> Actually all Linux kernels accounted for diskwaits and others like BSD based
> not. It is a very old linux oddness.

Personally, I see both types of load estimates (i.e. CPU only and CPU 
plus IO wait) as useful.  Why can't we have both?  The cost would be 
minimal.

Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Nick Piggin]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

>>... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
>>IO.
>>
>
>they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.
>

Perhaps kernel threads in D state should not contribute toward load avg.

Userspace does not care whether there are 2 or 20 pdflush threads waiting
for IO. However, when the network/disks can no longer keep up, userspace
processes will end up going to sleep in writeback or reclaim -- *that* is
when we start feeling the load.

--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Martin Bligh]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>>> ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
>>> IO.
>>>
>>
>> they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.
>>
> 
> Perhaps kernel threads in D state should not contribute toward load avg.
> 
> Userspace does not care whether there are 2 or 20 pdflush threads waiting
> for IO. However, when the network/disks can no longer keep up, userspace
> processes will end up going to sleep in writeback or reclaim -- *that* is
> when we start feeling the load.

Personally I'd be far happier having separated counters for both. Then
we can see what the real bottleneck is. Whilst we're at it, on a per-cpu
and per-elevator-queue basis ;-)

M.

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Nick Piggin]

Martin Bligh wrote:

> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps kernel threads in D state should not contribute toward load avg.
>>
>> Userspace does not care whether there are 2 or 20 pdflush threads 
>> waiting
>> for IO. However, when the network/disks can no longer keep up, userspace
>> processes will end up going to sleep in writeback or reclaim -- 
>> *that* is
>> when we start feeling the load.
>
>
> Personally I'd be far happier having separated counters for both.


Well so long as userspace never blocks, blocked kernel threads aren't a
bottleneck (OK, perhaps things like nfsd are an exception, but kernel
threads doing asynch work on behalf of userspace, like pdflush or kswapd).
It is something simple we can do today that might decouple the kernel
implementation (eg. of pdflush) from the load average reporting.

> Then
> we can see what the real bottleneck is. Whilst we're at it, on a per-cpu
> and per-elevator-queue basis ;-)

Might be helpful, yes. At least separate counters for CPU and IO... but
that doesn't mean the global loadavg is going away.

--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:57 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> >>... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
> >>IO.
> >>
> >
> >they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.
> >
> 
> Perhaps kernel threads in D state should not contribute toward load avg

that would be a change from, well... a LONG time

The question is what "load" means; if you want to change that... then
there are even better metrics possible. Like
"number of processes wanting to run + number of busy spindles + number
of busy nics + number of VM zones that are below the problem
watermark" (where "busy" means "queue full")

or 50 million other definitions. If we're going to change the meaning,
we might as well give it a "real" meaning. 

(And even then it is NOT a good measure for determining if the machine
can perform more work, the graph I put in a previous mail is very real,
and in practice it seems the saturation line is easily 4x or 5x of the
"linear" point)

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Nick Piggin]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

>On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:57 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>Perhaps kernel threads in D state should not contribute toward load avg
>>
>
>that would be a change from, well... a LONG time
>

But presently it changes all the time when we change the implementation
of pdflush or kswapd.

If we make pdflush threads blk_congestion_wait for twice as long, and
end up creating twice as many to feed the same amount of IO, our load
magically doubles but the machine is under almost exactly the same
load condition.

Back when we didn't have all these kernel threads doing work for us,
that wasn't an issue.

>
>The question is what "load" means; if you want to change that... then
>there are even better metrics possible. Like
>"number of processes wanting to run + number of busy spindles + number
>of busy nics + number of VM zones that are below the problem
>watermark" (where "busy" means "queue full")
>
>or 50 million other definitions. If we're going to change the meaning,
>we might as well give it a "real" meaning. 
>

I'm not sure if that is any better, and perhaps even worse. It does not
matter that much if VM zones are under a watermark if kswapd is taking
care of the problem and nothing ever blocks on memory IO.

(Sure kswapd will contribute to CPU usage, but that *will* be reflected
in load average)

>
>(And even then it is NOT a good measure for determining if the machine
>can perform more work, the graph I put in a previous mail is very real,
>and in practice it seems the saturation line is easily 4x or 5x of the
>"linear" point)
>

A global loadavg isn't too good anyway, as everyone has observed, there
are many independant resources. But my point is that it isn't going away
while apps still use it, so my point is that this might be an easy way to
improve it.

--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[David Lang]

On Tue, 9 May 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:57 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>
>>>> ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
>>>> IO.
>>>>
>>>
>>> they did. It was "D" state, which counted into load average.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps kernel threads in D state should not contribute toward load avg
>
> that would be a change from, well... a LONG time
>
> The question is what "load" means; if you want to change that... then
> there are even better metrics possible. Like
> "number of processes wanting to run + number of busy spindles + number
> of busy nics + number of VM zones that are below the problem
> watermark" (where "busy" means "queue full")
>
> or 50 million other definitions. If we're going to change the meaning,
> we might as well give it a "real" meaning.
>
> (And even then it is NOT a good measure for determining if the machine
> can perform more work, the graph I put in a previous mail is very real,
> and in practice it seems the saturation line is easily 4x or 5x of the
> "linear" point)

while this is true, it's also true that up in this area it's very easy for 
a spike of activity to cascade through the box and bring everything down 
to it's knees (I've seen a production box go from 'acceptable' response 
time to being effectivly down for two hours with a small 'tar' command 
(10's of K of writes) being the trigger that pushed it over the edge.

in general loadave > 2x #procs has been a good indication that the box is 
in danger and needs careful watching. I don't know when Linux changed it's 
loadavg calculation, but within the last several years there was a change 
that caused the loadaveg to report higher for the same amount of activity 
on the box. as a user it's hard to argue which is the more 'correct' 
value.

of the various functions that you mentioned above.

# processes wanting to run.
   gives a good indication if the cpu is the bottleneck. this is what 
people think loadavg means (the textbooks may be wrong, but they're what 
people learn from)

# spindles busy
   gives a good indication if the disks are the bottleneck. this needs to 
cover seek time and read/write time. My initial reaction is to base this 
on the avg # of outstanding requests to the drive, but I'm not sure how 
this would interact with TCQ/NCQ (it may just be that people need to know 
their drives, and know that a higher value for those drives is 
acceptable). This is one that I don't know how to find today (wait time 
won't show if something else keeps the cpu busy). In many ways this stat 
should be per-drive as well as any summary value (you can't just start 
useing another spindle the way you can just use another cpu, even in a 
NUMA system :-)

# Nic's busy
   don't bother with this, the networking folks have been tracking this for 
years, either locally on the box, or through the networking infrastructure 
(mrtg and friends were built for this)

# vm zones below the danger point
   I'm not sure about this one either in practice watching for pageing 
rates to climb seems to work, but this area is where black magic 
monitoring is in full force (and at the rate of change on the VM doesn't 
help this understanding)

I can understand your reluctance to quickly tinker with the loadavg 
calculation, but would it be possible to make the other values available 
by themselves for a while. then people can experiment in userspace to find 
the best way to combine the values into a single, nicely graphable 'health 
of the box' value.

David Lang

P.S. I would love to be told that I'm just ignorant of how to monitor 
these things independantly. it would make my life much easier to learn 
how.


-- 
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
  -- C.A.R. Hoare

RE: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Hua Zhong]

> A global loadavg isn't too good anyway, as everyone has 
> observed, there are many independant resources. But my point 
> is that it isn't going away while apps still use it, so my 
> point is that this might be an easy way to improve it.

It's not just those MTA's using it. Worse, many watchdog implementations use it too, and they will reload the box if the load is too
high.

So we do need some ways to make the loadavg more meaningful or at least more predictable.

Hua

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Bill Davidsen]

Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 01:22:36PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 13:13 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 09:50:39AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> This is probably because the number of pdflush threads slowly grows to its
>>>> maximum.  This is bogus, and we seem to have broken it sometime in the past
>>>> few releases.  I need to find a few quality hours to get in there and fix
>>>> it, but they're rare :(
>>>>
>>>> It's pretty harmless though.  The "load average" thing just means that the
>>>> extra pdflush threads are twiddling thumbs waiting on some disk I/O -
>>>> they'll later exit and clean themselves up.  They won't be consuming
>>>> significant resources.
>>> Not completely harmless. Some daemons (sendmail, exim) use the load
>>> average to decide if they will allow more work.
>> and those need to be fixed most likely ;)
> 
> Why do you think that?  exim uses the load average to work out whether
> it's a good idea to spawn more copies of itself, and increase the load
> on the machine.
> 
> Unfortunately though, under 2.6 kernels, the load average seems to be
> a meaningless indication of how busy the system is from that point of
> view.
> 
> Having a single CPU machine with a load average of 150 and still feel
> very interactive at the shell is extremely counter-intuitive.
> 
The things which is important is runable (as in want the CPU now)
processes. I've seen the L.A. that high on other systems which were
running fine, AIX and OpenDesktop to name two. It's not just a Linux thing.

-- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Bill Davidsen]

Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> wrote:
>> ... except that any kernel < 2.6 didn't account tasks waiting for disk
>> IO. Load average has always been somewhat related to tasks contending
>> for CPU power.
> 
> Actually all Linux kernels accounted for diskwaits and others like BSD based
> not. It is a very old linux oddness.

Well, sort of. The current numbers are counting kernel threads against 
load average, and before there were kernel threads that clearly didn't 
happen. So what you say is true, but it's only a part of the truth.

-- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me

Re: High load average on disk I/O on 2.6.17-rc3

[Sander]

David Lang wrote (ao):
> P.S. I would love to be told that I'm just ignorant of how to monitor
> these things independantly. it would make my life much easier to learn
> how.

I use vmstat and top together to determine if a system is (too) busy or
not.

vmstat gives a good indication about the amount of disk IO (both regular
IO and swap), and top sorted by cpu or memory shows which processes are
responsible for the numbers.

You as a human can interpret what you see. I don't think software should
do anything with the load average, as it does not reflect the actual
usage of the hardware.

	With kind regards, Sander

-- 
Humilis IT Services and Solutions
http://www.humilis.net