On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:49:33AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:38:06PM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > H.J.
> > ----
> > 3 files on USB:
> >
> > # ls -l
> > total 5984
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1991481 Dec 8 21:44 dsc00002.jpg
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2432127 Dec 8 23:54 dsc00005.jpg
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1675563 Dec 8 23:59 dsc00009.jpg
> >
> > 1. 2.4.10-pre10
> >
> > # time /bin/cp * /tmp/
> > real 0m0.623s
> > user 0m0.000s
> > sys 0m0.100s
> >
> > 2. 2.4.10-pre10aa1
I applied all the way to 40_blkdev-pagecache-17 in 2.4.10-pre10aa1.
> >
> > # time /bin/cp * /tmp/
> > real 0m8.952s
> > user 0m0.000s
> > sys 0m0.190s
> >
> >
> > 3. 2.4.10-pre11
> >
> > # time /bin/cp * /tmp/
> > real 0m8.851s
> > user 0m0.000s
> > sys 0m0.170s
>
> but the above have nothing to do with the blkdev-pagecache.
> Blkdev-pagecache can matter only with blkdev accesses, blkdev-pagecache
> cannot make any difference if the I/O passes through any fs (not via the
> block_dev layer) like in the above case.
That is why I said it was strange.
>
> Can you try to take those cp under strace timestamp and see what's the
> syscall that blocks?
It blocks on read.
H.J.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:24 EST