On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:27:10AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote: > On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote: > > Does the background fsck process continue to run, or does the whole > > system come to a halt? If the fsck process continues to run, what > > happens when it eventually finishes? Is the system still dead, or > > does it come back to life? If the system does not come back to life > > can you get me the output of `ps axl'? If not, can you break into > > the debugger and get a ps output? (You will need to have the DDB > > option specified in your config file). > > Sorry for butting in. I think Archie is referring to bg fsck gaining an > unfair share of cpu due to it running due to IO completions. Last I > heard, we were waiting until after 5.0 to experiment with scheduler > changes to make it more fair. I have not seen any hard locks or other > problems with bg fsck after your commit.
My experience is that, at least with my laptop (which has a very slow disk), bg fsck works OK, but starting applictions for the first time while fsck is running is _very_ painful. Even getty seems to have a hard time. I've found that adding a two minute delay before the fsck is sufficent to allow the system to finish starting up and for me to load X and my main applictions which lets me work while bg fsck is running. I posted a patch to add an optional delay in the rc scripts a while ago, but Kirk was going to re-enable the priority stuff soon so I didn't persue it. If there's intrest, I'll regenerate it and repost it. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
msg48238/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
