Re: [PATCH 00/13] IO-less dirty throttling v2

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:27:06 +1100 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > Indeed, nobody has
> > > realised (until now) just how inefficient it really is because of
> > > the fact that the overhead is mostly hidden in user process system
> > > time.
> > 
> > "hidden"?  You do "time dd" and look at the output!
> > 
> > _now_ it's hidden.  You do "time dd" and whee, no system time!
> 
> What I meant is that the cost of foreground writeback was hidden in
> the process system time. Now we have separated the two of them, we
> can see exactly how much it was costing us because it is no longer
> hidden inside the process system time.

About a billion years ago I wrote the "cyclesoak" thingy which measures
CPU utilisation the other way around: run a lowest-priority process on
each CPU in the background, while running your workload, then find out
how much CPU time cyclesoak *didn't* consume.  That way you account for
everything: user time, system time, kernel threads, interrupts,
softirqs, etc.  It turned out to be pretty accurate, despite the
then-absence of SCHED_IDLE.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/