| To: | "HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1)" <erik_habbinga@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: heavy VM load due to revamped pagebuf locking? |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:44:24 +0200 |
| Cc: | "'linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <F341E03C8ED6D311805E00902761278C0C35DE3E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from erik_habbinga@xxxxxx on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 11:13:39AM -0500 |
| References: | <F341E03C8ED6D311805E00902761278C0C35DE3E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 11:13:39AM -0500, HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1) wrote: > I've updated to 2.4.18 w/ a XFS CVS download from 03/29/2002. During SPEC > testing, the VM takes over all CPU load as pagebuf_iostart starts waiting > for memory, and then kmalloc starts waiting for memory. All of this time > spent in shrink_cache causes the SPEC test to time out. Once the test > stops, the box settles down and VM CPU load goes away. All of the > shrink_cache functions are waiting for schedule() to come back, because of > the test for current->need_resched at the top of the shrink_cache loop. For > grins, I commented out that test, and now many nfsd processes are sitting in > _pagebuf_find_lockable_buffer->pagebuf_iostart's call to pagebuf_iowait. > Could the revamped pagebuf locking cause this behaviour? You could test ist. Just revert that TAKE and test again. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | heavy VM load due to revamped pagebuf locking?, HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1) |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: heavy VM load due to revamped pagebuf locking?, Stephen Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | heavy VM load due to revamped pagebuf locking?, HABBINGA,ERIK (HP-Loveland,ex1) |
| Next by Thread: | Re: heavy VM load due to revamped pagebuf locking?, Stephen Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |