From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161143AbXD1HNG (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:13:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161408AbXD1HNG (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:13:06 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:33057 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161143AbXD1HNC (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:13:02 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/BinZLwHXBVviWV8zzDexZLJrIHSLRuRnOYirFYz YTOleUJcU/xzEU Subject: Re: [ext3][kernels >= 2.6.20.7 at least] KDE going comatose when FS is under heavy write load (massive starvation) From: Mike Galbraith To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds , LKML , Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: <20070428000142.2acab38a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1177660767.6567.41.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <1177734305.6266.7.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <1177741953.6268.18.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <20070428000142.2acab38a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:12:58 +0200 Message-Id: <1177744378.6667.9.camel@Homer.simpson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 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 Sat, 2007-04-28 at 00:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 08:32:32 +0200 Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 06:25 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > As promised, I tested with a kernel that I know for fact that I have > > tested heavy IO on previously, and behavior was identically horrid, so > > it's not something new that snuck in ~recently, my disk just got a _lot_ > > fuller in the meantime (12k mp3s munch a lot). > > Just to clarify here - you're saying that some older kernel is as sucky as > 2.6.21, and that (presumably) dropping the dirty ratios makes things a bit > better on the old kernel as well? I didn't drop dirty ratios, only verified that behavior was just as horrible as 2.6.21. > Actually, I'm surprised that data=writeback didn't help much. If the > present theories are correct it should have helped quite a lot, because in > data=writeback mode fsync(small-file) will not cause > fdatasync(everything-else). data=writeback did help quite noticeably, just not enough. -Mike