On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Mark Hahn wrote:
> I don't really expect much from my BP6, but:
> -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
> -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
> MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
> 500 24150 100.8 57334 63.5 26323 31.7 28861 91.4 60735 52.0 258.6 2.1
>
> that's on a 128M machine, so the bandwidths are real. that's a
> 3-way raid0 of 15G/platter udma33 disks under test10pre5.
>
> the astonishing thing is that when bonnie's writing, the machine
> wakes bdflush up > 50,000 times per second! so obviously, the
> %CPU numbers are even less meaningful than usual.
Hi Mark,
I've made a little progress fighting with bdflush. Can you please
try this and see if it helps you? I have still to figure out why,
but here, the first bdflush param _must_ be over 75 and under 90
to avoid zillions of context switches. That alone will probably
help enough, but I still think bdflush needs to do what the comments
say too.
I've done a LOT of change_this/change_that, but this is what seems
to help the most. It still starts out context switching like a madman,
but smooths out quickly. I think that this means that memory pressure
needs to be smoothed more frequently (tinker tinker tweak twiddle)
If you fiddle with the bdflush numbers a little, you'll see what I
mean with vmstat.
-Mike
echo 80 64 128 256 500 3000 500 1884 2 > /proc/sys/vm/bdflush
--- mm/vmscan.c.org Wed Oct 25 03:49:45 2000
+++ mm/vmscan.c Wed Oct 25 03:50:30 2000
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@
spin_unlock(&pagemap_lru_lock);
/* Will we do (asynchronous) IO? */
- if (sync && launder_loop && maxlaunder == 0)
+ if (sync && launder_loop && maxlaunder-- > 0)
wait = 2; /* Synchrounous IO */
else if (launder_loop && maxlaunder-- > 0)
wait = 1; /* Async IO */
--- fs/buffer.c.org Tue Oct 24 16:18:50 2000
+++ fs/buffer.c Tue Oct 24 18:02:25 2000
@@ -2640,7 +2640,7 @@
int bdflush(void *sem)
{
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
- int flushed;
+ int flushed = 0;
/*
* We have a bare-bones task_struct, and really should fill
* in a few more things so "top" and /proc/2/{exe,root,cwd}
@@ -2664,9 +2664,22 @@
for (;;) {
CHECK_EMERGENCY_SYNC
- flushed = flush_dirty_buffers(0);
+ /*
+ * flush_dirty_buffers() will flush no more than ndirty buffers
+ * at one time.
+ */
+ flushed += flush_dirty_buffers(0);
if (free_shortage())
flushed += page_launder(GFP_BUFFER, 0);
+ /*
+ * If there are still a lot of dirty buffers around,
+ * skip the sleep and flush some more. Otherwise, we
+ * go to sleep waiting a wakeup.
+ */
+ if (flushed < bdf_prm.b_un.nrefill && balance_dirty_state(NODEV) >= 0)
+{
+ run_task_queue(&tq_disk);
+ continue;
+ }
/* If wakeup_bdflush will wakeup us
after our bdflush_done wakeup, then
@@ -2678,15 +2691,8 @@
deadlock in SMP. */
__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
wake_up_all(&bdflush_done);
- /*
- * If there are still a lot of dirty buffers around,
- * skip the sleep and flush some more. Otherwise, we
- * go to sleep waiting a wakeup.
- */
- if (!flushed || balance_dirty_state(NODEV) < 0) {
- run_task_queue(&tq_disk);
- schedule();
- }
+ flushed = 0;
+ schedule();
/* Remember to mark us as running otherwise
the next schedule will block. */
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
