From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.4 : 100% CPU use on EIDE disk operarion, VIA chipset
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 07:51:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c4mbp9$pm8$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <406E9EE5.7030509@A88a2.a.pppool.de>
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Mikhail Ramendik wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have an computer with an AMD Duron, and the motehrboard chipset is VIA
>> KT133. The hard drive is a Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ; no other EIDE
>> devices are attached.
>>
>> I run an RH9-based distro, and added a 2.6.4 kernel to it. The following
>> problem was tested with two kernel variants: 2.6.4+wolk2/0 with
>> preeemption enabled, and 2.6.4 plain from kernel.org with preemption
>> disabled. No difference.
>>
>> I noticed performance problems with 2.6.4, and tracked them to strange
>> HDD behavior.
>>
>> It turned out that on disk-intensive operation, the "system" CPU usage
>> skyrockets. With a mere "cp" of a large file to the same direstory
>> (tested with ext3fs and FAT32 file systems), it is 100% practically all
>> of the time !
>
>
> Which tool do you use for measure? xosview?
>
> I'm having here the same problem. But it depends on the tool which is
> used for measuring. If I use top from procps 3.2, I can't see this high
> system load. "time" can't see it, too.
>
> This is what top says during cp of 512MB-file:
> Cpu(s): 2.0% us, 8.3% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 89.0% wa, 0.7% hi,
> 0.0% si
>
> New is "wa", what probably means "wait". This value is very high as long
> as the HD is writing or reading datas:
>
> cp dummy /dev/null
> produces this top-line:
> Cpu(s): 3.0% us, 5.3% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 91.0% wa, 0.7% hi,
> 0.0% si
Yes "wa" is not intuitive, some other operating systems use "wio" for
"wait i/o" time. As noted in the other thread, you can try the deadline
elevator or increased readahead for your load.
>
> and time says:
> real 0m53.195s
> user 0m0.013s
> sys 0m2.124s
>
>
> But you're right, 2.6.4 is slower than 2.4.25. See the thread "Very poor
> performance with 2.6.4" here in the list.
Much discussed, not overly fixed :-(
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-03 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.ld6rcgc.1lhmd9q@ifi.uio.no>
2004-04-03 11:24 ` 2.6.4 : 100% CPU use on EIDE disk operarion, VIA chipset Andreas Hartmann
2004-04-03 12:51 ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
2004-04-03 14:12 ` Mikhail Ramendik
2004-04-04 8:02 ` Mikhail Ramendik
[not found] <fa.g80v5s8.b2ofhi@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.idlmgtf.1pluljl@ifi.uio.no>
2004-04-04 8:07 ` Andreas Hartmann
2004-04-05 2:12 ` Bill Davidsen
[not found] ` <fa.ljb660n.d2ofa9@ifi.uio.no>
2004-04-04 8:24 ` Andreas Hartmann
2004-04-04 19:57 ` Mikhail Ramendik
2004-04-05 2:14 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-04-02 21:54 Mikhail Ramendik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='c4mbp9$pm8$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com' \
--to=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox