Re: [PATCH] O6int for interactivity

From: Nick Piggin (
Date: Fri Jul 18 2003 - 06:38:10 EST

Wiktor Wodecki wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 08:43:05PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:31, Wiktor Wodecki wrote:
>>>On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:18:33PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>>That _might_ (add salt) be priorities of kernel threads dropping too low.
>>>>I'm also seeing occasional total stalls under heavy I/O in the order of
>>>>10-12 seconds (even the disk stops). I have no idea if that's something
>>>>in mm or the scheduler changes though, as I've yet to do any isolation
>>>>and/or tinkering. All I know at this point is that I haven't seen it in
>>>>stock yet.
>>>I've seen this too while doing a huge nfs transfer from a 2.6 machine to
>>>a 2.4 machine (sparc32). Thought it'd be something with the nfs changes
>>>which were recently, might be the scheduler, tho. Ah, and it is fully
>>Well I didn't want to post this yet because I'm not sure if it's a good
>>workaround yet but it looks like a reasonable compromise, and since you have a
>>testcase it will be interesting to see if it addresses it. It's possible that
>>a task is being requeued every millisecond, and this is a little smarter. It
>>allows cpu hogs to run for 100ms before being round robinned, but shorter for
>>interactive tasks. Can you try this O7 which applies on top of O6.1 please:
>>available here:
>sorry, the problem still persists. Aborting the cp takes less time, tho
>(about 10 seconds now, before it was about 30 secs). I'm aborting during
>a big file, FYI.

OK if the IO actually stops then it shouldn't be an IO scheduler or
request allocation problem, but could you try to capture a sysrq T
trace for me during the freeze.

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 Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:33 EST