Re: large file IO starving ls -l

From: Roland Kuhn (
Date: Sun Aug 04 2002 - 01:14:55 EST

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> In article <>,
> Roland Kuhn <> wrote:
> >
> >Now the question is: who keeps ls from returning? The command never hits
> >the disk (reads in above histogram do not increase), but stays for many
> >seconds (up to one minute) in state D.
> ext2 used to have similar issues with the superblock lock - where things
> like block allocation (very much in the write path) would grab the
> superblock lock, and completely destroy interactive feel even for
> processes that didn't need to do IO, because the superblock lock was
> often grabbed even if the data was actually cached (sb locking needed
> just to _look_up_ the physical block so that you could look up the
> cached data in the buffer cache).
> Al Viro largely fixed in for ext2, which now uses lock_super() a lot
> less. But a lot of filesystems are based on the old ext2 locking, and
> may have inherited some of the worst parts..
Thanks for the hint, I will try to have a look at the reiserfs code. Could
you give me a hint where this lock usually is taken?


| TU Muenchen | |
| Physik-Department E18 | Raum 3558 |
| James-Franck-Str. | Telefon 089/289-12592 |
| 85747 Garching | |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:24 EST