On 11/17/07, James Chapman <jchapman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Fajun Chen wrote: > > On 11/16/07, Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Fajun Chen wrote: > >>> I use sg/libata and ata pass through for read/writes. Linux 2.6.18-rc2 > >>> and libata version 2.00 are loaded on ARM XScale board. Under heavy > >>> cpu load (e.g. when blocks per transfer/sector count is set to 1), > >>> I've observed that the test application can suck cpu away for long > >>> time (more than 20 seconds) and other processes including high > >>> priority shell can not get the time slice to run. What's interesting > >>> is that if the application is under heavy IO load (e.g. when blocks > >>> per transfer/sector count is set to 256), the problem goes away. I > >>> also tested with open source code sg_utils and got the same result, so > >>> this is not a problem specific to my user-space application. > >>> > >>> Since user preemption is checked when the kernel is about to return to > >>> user-space from a system call, process scheduler should be invoked > >>> after each system call. Something seems to be broken here. I found a > >>> similar issue below: > >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=103121214521819&w=2 > >>> But that turns out to be an issue with MTD/JFFS2 drivers, which are > >>> not used in my system. > >>> > >>> Has anyone experienced similar issues with sg/libata? Any information > >>> would be greatly appreciated. > >> That's one weird story. Does kernel say anything during that 20 seconds? > >> > > No. Nothing in kernel log. > > > > Fajun > > Have you considered using oprofile to find out what the CPU is doing > during the 20 seconds? > Haven't tried oprofile yet, not sure if it will get the time slice to run though. During this 20 seconds, I've verified that my application is still busy with R/W ops. > Does the problem occur when you put it under load using another method? > What are the ATA and network drivers here? I've seen some awful > out-of-tree device drivers hog the CPU with busy-waits and other crap. > Oprofile results should show the culprit. If blocks per transfer/sector count is set to 256, which means cpu has less load (any other implications?), this problem no longer occurs. Our target system uses libata sil24/pata680 drivers, has a customized FIFO driver but no network driver. The relevant variable here is blocks per transfer/sector count, which seems to matter only to sg/libata. Thanks, Fajun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
