From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756524AbZEQIyV (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 May 2009 04:54:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751951AbZEQIyK (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 May 2009 04:54:10 -0400 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.29]:8163 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751704AbZEQIyJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 May 2009 04:54:09 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=MO6JWrJDXNkC6uvy4KaeqcMXKMJTURZTk4x4WL/QP0LxDCRDrjl9uxJURsh5HLewdM /PmhZuI/aC0voIr3wuD8J7REXEb4eQUZzagAK0eZ4B3BDM8s2b6aJaFxVjKfgEASJ6/o RaywsO+9XRU1O2sFmM475JD28ujPIETxGqUgI= Message-ID: <4A0FD0AD.4030402@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 02:54:05 -0600 From: Robert Hancock User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Satish Eerpini CC: Mark Knecht , Rik van Riel , Ray Lee , Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel Subject: Re: unresponsiveness on linux desktop during file copy References: <93655eb70905151007v5f9bb34aj34be4b65ffeb02a4@mail.gmail.com> <5bdc1c8b0905151012x51c19b5cv639cadab1cee3849@mail.gmail.com> <93655eb70905151024o634f8432j6c3db85df1f6ddfc@mail.gmail.com> <5bdc1c8b0905151120p5aa58318t1765544fbbb695b2@mail.gmail.com> <93655eb70905151938y558bf86flcfb7c6b6b2c171c6@mail.gmail.com> <5bdc1c8b0905151947j326d31d9k5c7b1074af2b0bf0@mail.gmail.com> <93655eb70905152012j2a40d2e0ta413a5e9dee34d46@mail.gmail.com> <5bdc1c8b0905152037r614eaf8ft222c7a6294f2e80f@mail.gmail.com> <93655eb70905152352n6f82ef9dubb9b36e5be161ac7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <93655eb70905152352n6f82ef9dubb9b36e5be161ac7@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Satish Eerpini wrote: >> Do you believe this was working better on an earlier kernel? If so you >> might drop back and see if these commands work better. If so that >> would suggest a regression of some type. > > I remember good performance with 2.6.26.x series, ... but I could not > try that out, ,... things on a 2.6.27.23 kernel seem no better : > > Linux 2.6.27.23 (satish) 05/16/2009 > > 12:11:18 PM CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle > 12:11:21 PM all 0.00 0.00 3.92 75.65 0.00 20.42 > 12:11:24 PM all 0.00 0.00 3.55 67.85 0.00 28.59 > 12:11:27 PM all 0.16 0.00 4.51 45.09 0.00 50.24 > 12:11:30 PM all 0.00 0.00 3.59 44.77 0.00 51.63 > 12:11:33 PM all 0.16 0.00 5.25 82.51 0.00 12.08 > Average: all 0.06 0.00 4.17 63.24 0.00 32.53 > > the average disk speed was about 10.5 MB/s, indeed the average IOWAIT > is more than that in the latest kernel, I will see if I can test it on > a 2.6.26.x kernel or earlier one and send you guys the stats. High iowait during a file copy with no other activity is entirely normal. If you have a core that has nothing to do but wait for IO to complete, you'll get iowait time. This isn't indicating a problem.