From: Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@urpla.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: latency problems with 2.6.24.3 and before (probably xfs related)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:26:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200803031626.28307.hpj@urpla.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200803011219.30194.hpj@urpla.net>
Am Samstag, 1. März 2008 schrieb Hans-Peter Jansen:
> Hi,
>
> I'm suffering from latency problems on a openSUSE 10.2 server with kernel
> 2.6.24.3. To get gripe on it, I finally got around installing latencytop
> from git, and that output pretty much reflects the pathologic situation:
Here's a typical situation with medium load :
Cause Maximum Percentage
sync_page wait_on_page_bit write_cache_pages gener1269.7 msec 7.2 %
sync_page __lock_page block_page_mkwrite xfs_vm_pa997.9 msec 2.5 %
sync_page __lock_page block_page_mkwrite xfs_vm_pa684.4 msec 1.7 %
sync_page __lock_page block_page_mkwrite xfs_vm_pa415.7 msec 4.8 %
lock_super sync_supers do_sync sys_sync sysenter_p221.6 msec 0.6 %
xlog_state_sync _xfs_log_force _xfs_trans_commit x134.3 msec 0.5 %
xfs_iflock xfs_finish_reclaim xfs_sync_inodes xfs_ 35.3 msec 0.1 %
sync_page wait_on_page_bit wait_on_page_writeback_ 29.4 msec 0.1 %
sync_page __lock_page do_generic_mapping_read gene 11.1 msec 0.0 %
_pread64 sysenter_past_esp 0xffffe410
Process muser (5319)
sync_page wait_on_page_bit write_cache_pages gener1269.7 msec 89.4 %pages do_writepages __writeback_single_inode
lock_super sync_supers do_sync sys_sync sysenter_p221.6 msec 9.2 %odes
xfs_iflock xfs_finish_reclaim xfs_sync_inodes xfs_ 35.3 msec 1.3 %ync_super sync_filesystems do_sync sys_sync s
md_write_start make_request generic_make_request s 3.2 msec 0.1 %d_bio xfs_submit_ioend xfs_page_state_convert
xfs_vm_writepage __writepage write_cache_pages generic_writepages xfs_vm_writepages
muser is a database application for a terminal based order mgmt system, where
this leads to a very annoying user interface starvation for about 5-10 seconds.
Obviously, this process (already running with nice -20) syncs often (probably
due to its age: we started using it at year 2 B.L.; 1989 on Bull DPX systems,
oh well..).
I experimented with schedtool and ionice today, by boosting the suffering
processes and degrading others. But the problem persists.
Could it be, that the write queue is simply too large?
Here's the the block stat of the offended device:
~# cat /sys/block/sda/stat
1912195 54104 161804644 9629427 1407367 111132 27530479 572302123 0 12852042 581945330
The "write ticks" value 572302123 looks suspicious, isn't it?
The raid system is a 3ware 9500 controller with 5 WD Raptor WD740GD-00FLA0
drives in raid 5 mode.
Any ideas are highly appreciated.
Pete
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-03 15:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-01 11:19 Hans-Peter Jansen
2008-03-03 15:26 ` Hans-Peter Jansen [this message]
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=200803031626.28307.hpj@urpla.net \
--to=hpj@urpla.net \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®