Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 15:06, Ookhoi wrote: > Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > > In your case, there is no reason to renice the compile to -10, as > > > there are no other processes which take cpu, and therefore there is > > > nothing to gain. > > > > This is CORRECT, but think, could I use XFree while some preccese has > > nice value -10? I don't think so > > You should be able to. But is your X also -10 ? now X is not runningonly console > You said you had problem with that too, but that is really weird as X > would not want 100% cpu. > > In an other mail you write that your compiles are very fast. If a new > kernel doesn't solve your problem, and compiles are very fast anyway, I > would say: don't do that then (the renice to -10), or renice to -5 or > some value which does not bother you. I don't want to renice compilation threads, only X to get more responsives from it...but this locks me out :-) > I'm quite sure this is not reiserfs related in any way. Just convert > your p300 to reiserfs and see what happens. maybe - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X2AcczD4Ii52ssMRAgv7AKCkEbQnPTj2X7a3IMtrjYFgNqTmlQCghvM6 8RbbRK+Z4QZAS1ZWv8BRSmw= =2KLA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > In your case, there is no reason to renice the compile to -10, as > > there are no other processes which take cpu, and therefore there is > > nothing to gain. > > This is CORRECT, but think, could I use XFree while some preccese has > nice value -10? I don't think so You should be able to. But is your X also -10 ? You said you had problem with that too, but that is really weird as X would not want 100% cpu. In an other mail you write that your compiles are very fast. If a new kernel doesn't solve your problem, and compiles are very fast anyway, I would say: don't do that then (the renice to -10), or renice to -5 or some value which does not bother you. I'm quite sure this is not reiserfs related in any way. Just convert your p300 to reiserfs and see what happens.
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 15:00, Ookhoi wrote: > Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > [cut cpuinfo, meminfo, hdparm, dmesg] > > All looks ok, although your dmesg misses the last half. attached in second email > Can you try latest 2.4 without patches? yes > If you still have problems, please post your kernel config. > > Also, please post a 'time make bzImage' so we can compare that. Don't get mw wrong :-) Compilation goes VERY FAST, but i'll post the time output - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X15JczD4Ii52ssMRAmhLAJ0Rn6owky80iMi6wYsuZTmra76b6QCffXNs GITMLqEW7sx8yroZzbPUqPc= =RxMY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Yep, sorry, I figured it RIGHT AFTER pressing that damn Send button... :) Sorry again for spammin'... (I just saw Hans, too, making a mistake on this topic, so I can breathe a little easier now... ;-P ) Cheers, Sab - Original Message - From: "Voicu Liviu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Szabolcs Szasz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 2003. február 28. 13:56 Subject: Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?! -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 14:23, Szabolcs Szasz wrote: > Well, as man nice says: > > "Range goes from -20 (highest priority) to 19 (lowest)." > > So why is that such a surprise that CPU goes up > to the sky? Why else -20 is there for? (Or am I > missing something?) OK :-) Here at home I have P2 300 Mhz ext3 based. If I'll do nice -n -20 some_command_here this will not lock my box :-) really > > Cheers, > Sab > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marc-Christian Petersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Voicu Liviu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hans Reiser" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Oleg Drokin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 2003. február 28. 13:13 > Subject: Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?! > > > On Friday 28 February 2003 13:11, Voicu Liviu wrote: > > Hi Voicu, > > > Already using this :-) > > Any way, the system works great but if I change the "nice" value of some > > process then the CPU almost becomes slave of this process. > > out of sheer curiosity: Why you are nicing emerge to -20?! > > You are using the O(1) scheduler so I see absolute no need to do so. > > ciao, Marc - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X1yDczD4Ii52ssMRAqxHAJ4q/QcrCv7v+aZw3K1zirpPid/weQCfck7F LuF68EtGmeIqu+oaPJ61NYc= =IKJZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): [cut cpuinfo, meminfo, hdparm, dmesg] All looks ok, although your dmesg misses the last half. Can you try latest 2.4 without patches? If you still have problems, please post your kernel config. Also, please post a 'time make bzImage' so we can compare that.
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 14:57, Ookhoi wrote: > Hans Reiser wrote (ao): > > > PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND > > > 889 portage 15 -10 21508 21M 4172 R < 98.9 8.4 0:16 cc1plus > > > 890 portage5 -10 2368 2368 752 S < 0.9 0.9 0:00 as > > > 845 liviu 15 0 1100 1100 792 R 0.1 0.4 0:00 top > > > > Voicu, I think you have your nice directions confused, and you want to > > nice your compile to +10 not -10. Probably Unix should reverse the > > directions, but > > I believe he wants to speed up the compile, for which -10 is ok if there > are other processes which need cpu cycles. Corect, I use X and vmware and JBuilder and XFCE4 so I can renice each 1 I want - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X123czD4Ii52ssMRAt2MAKCn1qh5LLUxz59BlGXkvg/zgHPuhwCeIwv7 fMUxjNFLbyFxNa3oA5B4Gt0= =zzZA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 14:56, Ookhoi wrote: > Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > OK, so in this mashine I compile kde3.1 and this is the output of the > > "top" command ( it took me 5 seconds to write top in the command line and > > another 10 antill I saw the output...really slow ) > > > > 35 processes: 31 sleeping, 4 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped > > CPU states: 99.4% user, 0.3% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% iowait, 0.1% > > idle Mem: 255948k av, 250540k used,5408k free, 0k shrd, > > 28344k buff 59512k active, 119096k inactive > > Swap: 514072k av, 144k used, 513928k free 122280k > > cached > > > > PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND > > 889 portage 15 -10 21508 21M 4172 R < 98.9 8.4 0:16 cc1plus > > 890 portage5 -10 2368 2368 752 S < 0.9 0.9 0:00 as > > 845 liviu 15 0 1100 1100 792 R 0.1 0.4 0:00 top > > 1 root 15 0 484 484 428 S 0.0 0.1 0:05 init > > In your case, there is no reason to renice the compile to -10, as there > are no other processes which take cpu, and therefore there is nothing to > gain. This is CORRECT, but think, could I use XFree while some preccese has nice value -10? I don't think so > I still wonder what could be the reason for the bad response of the > keyboard. - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X111czD4Ii52ssMRAswZAJ9eOFo60Z5Jq+h3I6UsFqFFw9KLXACaA75y Z3ptPsNmKnQW4hJ6lT0ee50= =s/rV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Hans Reiser wrote (ao): > > PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND > > 889 portage 15 -10 21508 21M 4172 R < 98.9 8.4 0:16 cc1plus > > 890 portage5 -10 2368 2368 752 S < 0.9 0.9 0:00 as > > 845 liviu 15 0 1100 1100 792 R 0.1 0.4 0:00 top > > Voicu, I think you have your nice directions confused, and you want to > nice your compile to +10 not -10. Probably Unix should reverse the > directions, but I believe he wants to speed up the compile, for which -10 is ok if there are other processes which need cpu cycles.
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > OK, so in this mashine I compile kde3.1 and this is the output of the "top" > command ( it took me 5 seconds to write top in the command line and another > 10 antill I saw the output...really slow ) > > 35 processes: 31 sleeping, 4 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped > CPU states: 99.4% user, 0.3% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% iowait, 0.1% idle > Mem: 255948k av, 250540k used,5408k free, 0k shrd, 28344k buff > 59512k active, 119096k inactive > Swap: 514072k av, 144k used, 513928k free 122280k > cached > > PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND > 889 portage 15 -10 21508 21M 4172 R < 98.9 8.4 0:16 cc1plus > 890 portage5 -10 2368 2368 752 S < 0.9 0.9 0:00 as > 845 liviu 15 0 1100 1100 792 R 0.1 0.4 0:00 top > 1 root 15 0 484 484 428 S 0.0 0.1 0:05 init In your case, there is no reason to renice the compile to -10, as there are no other processes which take cpu, and therefore there is nothing to gain. I still wonder what could be the reason for the bad response of the keyboard.
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Voicu Liviu wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 OK, so in this mashine I compile kde3.1 and this is the output of the "top" command ( it took me 5 seconds to write top in the command line and another 10 antill I saw the output...really slow ) 35 processes: 31 sleeping, 4 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: 99.4% user, 0.3% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% iowait, 0.1% idle Mem: 255948k av, 250540k used,5408k free, 0k shrd, 28344k buff 59512k active, 119096k inactive Swap: 514072k av, 144k used, 513928k free 122280k cached PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND 889 portage 15 -10 21508 21M 4172 R < 98.9 8.4 0:16 cc1plus 890 portage5 -10 2368 2368 752 S < 0.9 0.9 0:00 as 845 liviu 15 0 1100 1100 792 R 0.1 0.4 0:00 top 1 root 15 0 484 484 428 S 0.0 0.1 0:05 init 2 root 15 0 00 0 SW0.0 0.0 0:00 keventd 3 root 34 19 00 0 SWN 0.0 0.0 0:00 ksoftirqd_CPU0 4 root 15 0 00 0 SW0.0 0.0 0:00 kswapd 5 root 15 0 00 0 SW0.0 0.0 0:00 bdflush 6 root 15 0 00 0 RW0.0 0.0 0:00 kupdated 9 root 15 0 00 0 SW0.0 0.0 0:00 kreiserfsd 33 root 15 0 888 888 592 S 0.0 0.3 0:00 devfsd 3612 root 15 0 564 564 488 S 0.0 0.2 0:00 metalog 3614 root 15 0 460 460 416 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 metalog 3729 root 15 0 1252 1252 1128 S 0.0 0.4 0:00 sshd 3740 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3741 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3742 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3743 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3744 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3745 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 12092 root 15 0 1220 1220 836 S 0.0 0.4 0:00 screen 12093 root 15 0 1316 1316 1044 S 0.0 0.5 0:00 sh 12099 root 10 -5 5492 5492 1896 S < 0.0 2.1 0:07 python2.2 31549 portage 10 -10 376 376 312 S < 0.0 0.1 0:00 sandbox 31550 portage 10 -10 1172 1172 900 S < 0.0 0.4 0:00 ebuild.sh 31557 portage5 -10 472 472 396 S < 0.0 0.1 0:00 tee 31577 liviu 15 0 1316 1316 1060 S 0.0 0.5 0:00 bash 300 portage 10 -10 796 796 556 S < 0.0 0.3 0:00 make 699 portage 10 -10 832 832 576 S < 0.0 0.3 0:00 make 700 portage 10 -10 1052 1052 836 S < 0.0 0.4 0:00 sh 701 portage6 -10 1552 1552 576 S < 0.0 0.6 0:00 make 886 portage6 -10 640 640 440 S < 0.0 0.2 0:00 g++ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X1qUczD4Ii52ssMRAso7AJ0bAlC3YbXjax28nVe9NbI6/+cJ/ACfX9Lx O+fZu4gbCPjqSDraeWrYbbk= =uWh1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Voicu, I think you have your nice directions confused, and you want to nice your compile to +10 not -10. Probably Unix should reverse the directions, but -- Hans
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 14:23, Szabolcs Szasz wrote: > Well, as man nice says: > > "Range goes from -20 (highest priority) to 19 (lowest)." > > So why is that such a surprise that CPU goes up > to the sky? Why else -20 is there for? (Or am I > missing something?) OK :-) Here at home I have P2 300 Mhz ext3 based. If I'll do nice -n -20 some_command_here this will not lock my box :-) really > > Cheers, > Sab > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marc-Christian Petersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Voicu Liviu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hans Reiser" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Oleg Drokin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 2003. február 28. 13:13 > Subject: Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?! > > > On Friday 28 February 2003 13:11, Voicu Liviu wrote: > > Hi Voicu, > > > Already using this :-) > > Any way, the system works great but if I change the "nice" value of some > > process then the CPU almost becomes slave of this process. > > out of sheer curiosity: Why you are nicing emerge to -20?! > > You are using the O(1) scheduler so I see absolute no need to do so. > > ciao, Marc - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X1yDczD4Ii52ssMRAqxHAJ4q/QcrCv7v+aZw3K1zirpPid/weQCfck7F LuF68EtGmeIqu+oaPJ61NYc= =IKJZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > cat /proc/cpuinfo $ cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 1 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.50GHz stepping: 2 cpu MHz : 1495.561 cache size : 256 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm bogomips: 2949.12 > cat /proc/meminfo $ cat /proc/meminfo total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached: Mem: 262090752 258859008 32317440 27267072 122875904 Swap: 526409728 147456 526262272 MemTotal: 255948 kB MemFree: 3156 kB MemShared: 0 kB Buffers: 26628 kB Cached: 119996 kB SwapCached: 0 kB Active: 59220 kB Inactive: 121724 kB HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree:0 kB LowTotal: 255948 kB LowFree: 3156 kB SwapTotal: 514072 kB SwapFree: 513928 kB > hdparm /dev/hda # hdparm /dev/hda /dev/hda: multcount= 16 (on) IO_support = 1 (32-bit) unmaskirq= 1 (on) using_dma= 1 (on) keepsettings = 0 (off) readonly = 0 (off) readahead= 8 (on) geometry = 4865/255/63, sectors = 78165360, start = 0 > dmesg Linux version 2.4.20-ck3 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.2.2) #1 Thu Feb 27 22:09:05 IST 2003 BIOS-provided physical RAM map: BIOS-e820: - 0009fc00 (usable) BIOS-e820: 0009fc00 - 000a (reserved) BIOS-e820: 000e - 0010 (reserved) BIOS-e820: 0010 - 0ffc (usable) BIOS-e820: 0ffc - 0fff8000 (ACPI data) BIOS-e820: 0fff8000 - 1000 (ACPI NVS) BIOS-e820: fec0 - fec01000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: fee0 - fee01000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: ffb8 - ffc0 (reserved) BIOS-e820: fff0 - 0001 (reserved) 255MB LOWMEM available. ACPI: have wakeup address 0xc0001000 On node 0 totalpages: 65472 zone(0): 4096 pages. zone(1): 61376 pages. zone(2): 0 pages. ACPI: RSDP (v000 AMI) @ 0x000ff980 ACPI: RSDT (v001 D850MV MV85010A 08193.04113) @ 0x0fff ACPI: FADT (v001 D850MV MV85010A 08193.04113) @ 0x0fff1000 ACPI: MADT (v001 D850MV MV85010A 08193.04113) @ 0x0ffe2f45 ACPI: DSDT (v001 D850MV MV85010A 0.3) @ 0x ACPI: BIOS passes blacklist ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee0 ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) Processor #0 Unknown CPU [15:1] APIC version 16 ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x01] polarity[0x0] trigger[0x0] lint[0x1]) ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x01] address[0xfec0] global_irq_base[0x0]) IOAPIC[0]: Assigned apic_id 1 IOAPIC[0]: apic_id 1, version 32, address 0xfec0, IRQ 0-23 ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus[0] irq[0x9] global_irq[0x9] polarity[0x1] trigger[0x3]) ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus[0] irq[0x0] global_irq[0x2] polarity[0x0] trigger[0x0]) Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration information Kernel command line: root=/dev/hda2 vga=0x318 hdd=ide-scsi Initializing CPU#0 Detected 1495.561 MHz processor. Console: colour dummy device 80x25 Calibrating delay loop... 2949.12 BogoMIPS Memory: 255780k/261888k available (1822k kernel code, 5720k reserved, 610k data, 168k init, 0k highmem) Dentry cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 6, 262144 bytes) Inode cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 5, 131072 bytes) Mount-cache hash table entries: 4096 (order: 3, 32768 bytes) Buffer-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) Page-cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes) CPU: L1 I cache: 0K, L1 D cache: 8K CPU: L2 cache: 256K Intel machine check architecture supported. Intel machine check reporting enabled on CPU#0. CPU: After generic, caps: 3febfbff CPU: Common caps: 3febfbff CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.50GHz stepping 02 Enabling fast FPU save and restore... done. Enabling unmasked SIMD FPU exception support... done. Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK. POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX enabled ExtINT on CPU#0 ESR value before enabling vector: ESR value after enabling vector: ENABLING IO-APIC IRQs init IO_APIC IRQs IO-APIC (apicid-pin) 1-0, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23 not connected. ..TIMER: vector=0x31 pin1=2 pin2=0 number of MP IRQ sources: 16. number of IO-APIC #1 registers: 24. testing the IO APIC... IO APIC #1.. register #00: 0100 ...: physical APIC id: 01 register #01: 00178020 ... : max redirection entries: 0017 ... : PRQ implemented: 1 ... : IO APIC version: 0020 register #02: .
Re: Getopt improvements
Oleg Drokin wrote: Hello! On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:26PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote: For the simple cases (which also happen to be all we have right now), yes, I think that my implementation is cleaner. It allows the simple use of mutually exclusive options, through the "no" prefix, and clearing of the other bits in a multivalue option. For now, that's all we need - and it's a valid argument for using my code. However, what I like about Oleg's implementation is that if you have an option that excludes other options (even when it's not multivalue), it can clear those bits as well. It clears them without failing, yes? Not sure I like that. Hm, why should it fail? Incompatible options should fail as they represent error. Feel free to argue with that. Hm, I am not going to argue. But we never had this kind of logic. Usually the latest-specified option was taking effect. Bye, Oleg Conflicts in the same command line should fail, latest command line should override. Yes? -- Hans
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 OK, so in this mashine I compile kde3.1 and this is the output of the "top" command ( it took me 5 seconds to write top in the command line and another 10 antill I saw the output...really slow ) 35 processes: 31 sleeping, 4 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: 99.4% user, 0.3% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% iowait, 0.1% idle Mem: 255948k av, 250540k used,5408k free, 0k shrd, 28344k buff 59512k active, 119096k inactive Swap: 514072k av, 144k used, 513928k free 122280k cached PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND 889 portage 15 -10 21508 21M 4172 R < 98.9 8.4 0:16 cc1plus 890 portage5 -10 2368 2368 752 S < 0.9 0.9 0:00 as 845 liviu 15 0 1100 1100 792 R 0.1 0.4 0:00 top 1 root 15 0 484 484 428 S 0.0 0.1 0:05 init 2 root 15 0 00 0 SW0.0 0.0 0:00 keventd 3 root 34 19 00 0 SWN 0.0 0.0 0:00 ksoftirqd_CPU0 4 root 15 0 00 0 SW0.0 0.0 0:00 kswapd 5 root 15 0 00 0 SW0.0 0.0 0:00 bdflush 6 root 15 0 00 0 RW0.0 0.0 0:00 kupdated 9 root 15 0 00 0 SW0.0 0.0 0:00 kreiserfsd 33 root 15 0 888 888 592 S 0.0 0.3 0:00 devfsd 3612 root 15 0 564 564 488 S 0.0 0.2 0:00 metalog 3614 root 15 0 460 460 416 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 metalog 3729 root 15 0 1252 1252 1128 S 0.0 0.4 0:00 sshd 3740 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3741 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3742 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3743 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3744 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 3745 root 15 0 412 412 356 S 0.0 0.1 0:00 agetty 12092 root 15 0 1220 1220 836 S 0.0 0.4 0:00 screen 12093 root 15 0 1316 1316 1044 S 0.0 0.5 0:00 sh 12099 root 10 -5 5492 5492 1896 S < 0.0 2.1 0:07 python2.2 31549 portage 10 -10 376 376 312 S < 0.0 0.1 0:00 sandbox 31550 portage 10 -10 1172 1172 900 S < 0.0 0.4 0:00 ebuild.sh 31557 portage5 -10 472 472 396 S < 0.0 0.1 0:00 tee 31577 liviu 15 0 1316 1316 1060 S 0.0 0.5 0:00 bash 300 portage 10 -10 796 796 556 S < 0.0 0.3 0:00 make 699 portage 10 -10 832 832 576 S < 0.0 0.3 0:00 make 700 portage 10 -10 1052 1052 836 S < 0.0 0.4 0:00 sh 701 portage6 -10 1552 1552 576 S < 0.0 0.6 0:00 make 886 portage6 -10 640 640 440 S < 0.0 0.2 0:00 g++ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X1qUczD4Ii52ssMRAso7AJ0bAlC3YbXjax28nVe9NbI6/+cJ/ACfX9Lx O+fZu4gbCPjqSDraeWrYbbk= =uWh1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > Ok. Can you provide top output? > > Not right now because the computer is 40 minutes far away of me but I > can connect via ssh and try to install 'mozilla' for example with nice > -10 and post here the top snapshot > OK? Perfect. Can you also post the output of the following to the list? cat /proc/cpuinfo cat /proc/meminfo hdparm /dev/hda dmesg And top output before, during, and after the install please.
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Well, as man nice says: "Range goes from -20 (highest priority) to 19 (lowest)." So why is that such a surprise that CPU goes up to the sky? Why else -20 is there for? (Or am I missing something?) Cheers, Sab - Original Message - From: "Marc-Christian Petersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Voicu Liviu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hans Reiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Oleg Drokin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 2003. február 28. 13:13 Subject: Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?! On Friday 28 February 2003 13:11, Voicu Liviu wrote: Hi Voicu, > Already using this :-) > Any way, the system works great but if I change the "nice" value of some > process then the CPU almost becomes slave of this process. out of sheer curiosity: Why you are nicing emerge to -20?! You are using the O(1) scheduler so I see absolute no need to do so. ciao, Marc
Re: Getopt improvements
Hello! On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:04:26PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote: > >>> For the simple cases (which also happen to be all we have right > >>>now), yes, I think that my implementation is cleaner. It allows the > >>>simple use of mutually exclusive options, through the "no" prefix, and > >>>clearing of the other bits in a multivalue option. For now, that's > >>>all we need - and it's a valid argument for using my code. However, > >>>what I like about Oleg's implementation is that if you have an option > >>>that excludes other options (even when it's not multivalue), it can > >>>clear those bits as well. > >>It clears them without failing, yes? Not sure I like that. > >Hm, why should it fail? > Incompatible options should fail as they represent error. Feel free to > argue with that. Hm, I am not going to argue. But we never had this kind of logic. Usually the latest-specified option was taking effect. Bye, Oleg
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 14:38, Ookhoi wrote: > Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > On Friday 28 February 2003 14:35, Ookhoi wrote: > > > Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > > > Now do you understand? I'm even afraid to renice my XFree to -10 cuz > > > > I'll remain blocked out of the box :-) > > > > > > Did you actually try? > > > > Yep > > Ok. Can you provide top output? Not right now because the computer is 40 minutes far away of me but I can connect via ssh and try to install 'mozilla' for example with nice -10 and post here the top snapshot OK? - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X1keczD4Ii52ssMRAouMAJ9edVTo0CY9q0WtEl6H8GfLxf8mEwCfSnfR ackDgpUBvazSbMm7pzlcog4= =RgWd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > On Friday 28 February 2003 14:35, Ookhoi wrote: > > Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > > Now do you understand? I'm even afraid to renice my XFree to -10 cuz > > > I'll remain blocked out of the box :-) > > > > Did you actually try? > > Yep Ok. Can you provide top output?
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 14:35, Ookhoi wrote: > Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > Now do you understand? I'm even afraid to renice my XFree to -10 cuz > > I'll remain blocked out of the box :-) > > Did you actually try? Yep - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X1h8czD4Ii52ssMRAgyKAKCfSj8P4/RXO/Yjp1mJ/1I1z8Hs6gCfQ8rZ Qumj22ffO4/qS4vXqFgC/ko= =E7N+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > Now do you understand? I'm even afraid to renice my XFree to -10 cuz > I'll remain blocked out of the box :-) Did you actually try?
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
On Friday 28 February 2003 13:34, Voicu Liviu wrote: Hi Voicu, > On Friday 28 February 2003 14:25, Toby Dickenson wrote: > > On Friday 28 February 2003 12:11 pm, Voicu Liviu wrote: > > > Already using this :-) > > > Any way, the system works great but if I change the "nice" value of > > > some process then the CPU almost becomes slave of this process. > > > > If that means the compile finishes faster (and you havent said whether or > > not it does) then isnt using more of the cpu a good thing? > It's ok but this killes my keyboard and really can't do anything else :-( Hmm, this sounds too strange. I cannot see why ext3 does not have this problem where ReiserFS has a problem, during a kernel compilation. I have a Celeron, 1,3GHz and it doesn't matter what FS I use, if I nice a kernel compilation to -20, I can still work w/o any strangeness. ciao, Marc
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 14:24, Ookhoi wrote: > Voicu Liviu wrote (ao): > > So, you will not suggest me convert my Pentium2 300 Mhz from ext3 to > > ReiserFS will you? > > I really wanna try it but I am afraid that the FS will kill my CPU. > > I use reiserfs on a p-mmx 200MHz, and it runs fine. Also when I renice > processes (like kernel compile). > > > > > I have to fix the CPU usage icon_sad.gif I makes me crazy...simple > > > > emerge loads the CPU to 90 ~ 95% > > Your problem sounds strange. Kan you show a top snapshot before and > after the renice? > > Btw, dunno about your os, but for example debian start X with nice level > -10, which makes it a bit more responsive when there are little cpu > cycles left. Now do you understand? I'm even afraid to renice my XFree to -10 cuz I'll remain blocked out of the box :-) > > > Did not checked this in kernel...will you suggest me try vanilla > > kernel (2.4.20 from kernel.org) without all those patches I have > > applyed? Maybe this will help or not? > > Try with or without patches, and show the list your .config settings if > the problem still exists. - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X1eTczD4Ii52ssMRAl3SAJ9z55tFVxthXlC+9CI2BmI5qnj1GQCggSIQ 3k8h4rUvQcwgToYfcDnU5rI= =dIat -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 28 February 2003 14:25, Toby Dickenson wrote: > On Friday 28 February 2003 12:11 pm, Voicu Liviu wrote: > > Already using this :-) > > Any way, the system works great but if I change the "nice" value of some > > process then the CPU almost becomes slave of this process. > > If that means the compile finishes faster (and you havent said whether or > not it does) then isnt using more of the cpu a good thing? It's ok but this killes my keyboard and really can't do anything else :-( - -- Voicu Liviu Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rothberg International School Assistant Programmer & Network Support -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+X1dPczD4Ii52ssMRAnm5AJ9qGSKAbS0BizruYV66f65r6ceyXACggsWU EHQRzGlVNqYYzfG4fdZvtDA= =1NNO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ReiserFS causes CPU high usage?!
On Friday 28 February 2003 12:11 pm, Voicu Liviu wrote: > Already using this :-) > Any way, the system works great but if I change the "nice" value of some > process then the CPU almost becomes slave of this process. If that means the compile finishes faster (and you havent said whether or not it does) then isnt using more of the cpu a good thing?
