From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751210AbWFSGmo (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:42:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751180AbWFSGmo (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:42:44 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.21]:57783 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751139AbWFSGmn (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:42:43 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Subject: Re: [RFC] CPU controllers? From: Mike Galbraith To: Andrew Morton Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, sam@vilain.net, vatsa@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, mingo@elte.hu, pwil3058@bigpond.net.au, sekharan@us.ibm.com, balbir@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maeda.naoaki@jp.fujitsu.com, kurosawa@valinux.co.jp In-Reply-To: <20060618233522.c2690983.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060615134632.GA22033@in.ibm.com> <4493C1D1.4020801@yahoo.com.au> <20060617164812.GB4643@in.ibm.com> <4494DF50.2070509@yahoo.com.au> <4494EA66.8030305@vilain.net> <4494EE86.7090209@yahoo.com.au> <20060617234259.dc34a20c.akpm@osdl.org> <1150616176.7985.50.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> <20060618020932.5947a7dc.akpm@osdl.org> <1150624169.9324.12.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> <1150698525.4659.8.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> <20060618233522.c2690983.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:46:13 +0200 Message-Id: <1150699573.8326.2.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 23:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:28:45 +0200 > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > This is kinda OT for this thread, but here's another example of where > > the IO can easily foil CPU distribution plans. I wonder how many folks > > get nailed by /proc being mounted without noatime,nodiratime like I just > > apparently did. > > > > top D E29B4928 0 10174 8510 (NOTLB) > > d2f63c4c 00100100 00200200 e29b4928 ea07f3c0 f1510c40 000f6e66 d2f63000 > > d2f63000 ed88c550 f1510c40 000f6e66 d2f63000 d2f63000 ed062220 ed88c550 > > d2f63c70 b139a97b ed062224 efef8df8 ed062224 ed88c550 d2f63000 0000385a > > Call Trace: > > [] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x59/0xb0 > > [] .text.lock.mutex+0x5/0x14 > > [] __log_wait_for_space+0x53/0xb4 > > [] start_this_handle+0x100/0x617 > > [] journal_start+0xbb/0xe0 > > [] ext3_journal_start_sb+0x29/0x4a > > [] ext3_dirty_inode+0x2a/0xaf > > [] __mark_inode_dirty+0x2a/0x19e > > [] touch_atime+0x79/0x9f > > [] do_generic_mapping_read+0x370/0x480 > > [] __generic_file_aio_read+0xf0/0x205 > > [] generic_file_aio_read+0x3a/0x46 > > [] do_sync_read+0xbb/0xf1 > > [] vfs_read+0xa4/0x166 > > [] sys_read+0x3d/0x64 > > [] syscall_call+0x7/0xb > > Confused. What has this to do with /proc? /me assumed... with usual result.