Some days ago Mr. Chinner(?, don't have the e-mail anymore) said that
XFS fakes ( :-) ) it's way around IO-wait accounting for file-deletion
by deferring it to the log.
Today i thought again about the initial 'rm -rf'-isn't-accounted-properly
"problem", and the bigger part of "rm -rf" is the
directory-traversal(IOW read) and not the actual "unlink"-part.
So what better test than a simple 'find'.
Situation: Cache is cold:
find /<wherever> >/dev/null
While running (which takes some time) it shows exactly 0.0%wa in top on
an otherwise completely idle system, where there should be a near 50%wa
(Dual-Core system) or 100% on a UP system.
For plain old file-reading the IO-Wait appears to show correctly (AFAICT).
In a short test:
cat <somelargefiles> > /dev/null
peaked at 48%wa (said Dual-Core) with an average around 45%wa.
SO how das XFS fake around IO-wait accounting this time?
Unfortunatly i don't have any sufficiently large non-XFS-filesystems to
do a good(tm) comparison, but a test on a small ext3-fs appeared to
correctly(tm) account IO-Wait in directory traversal.
Tested Kernels: 2.6.23 & 2.6.24rc6
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.