Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A1C404945 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:37:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.321, BAYES_05=-1.11] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WIRaMKswGU9J for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f218.google.com (mail-fx0-f218.google.com [209.85.220.218]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36133404944 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10so58724fxm.30 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:37:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:subject :to:cc:in-reply-to:references; bh=fUyVvX9A0WS914tO1tfo5ZvN98T1uohkqsboXQPPrv8=; b=sNsgoqwUzfYs13nSguSWvjku6SRKXQLDZuzio617ZXxiVUKI3Y/JlIvS/eSoimMzYu ZHNcFumlMB4N2oDxcFw1nNULDO9dxANYex1DDAZ2FmTXmETO+7ExkTqIqmSP+UdGEOlo JLQDPFJnTBo+hpuCs4U9ChaI16xZMUtxgxO7M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:subject:to:cc:in-reply-to:references; b=eCF+PNiTqHGeVjDlu5X0JJje1oNloXQxfUziQ3XA1EPRdgHwLnOzglYsm1DJmRRqee IkU2lLrlivzfFf8eayqDf/eJQhITlEJTqwjlnn6U4BJbIINCLnpTMsDTIFXzO4HsxRkm RWXSr5vXCNE3Y+dngaxwYIlvMWSBVR+TVfgXM= Received: by 10.223.2.134 with SMTP id 6mr116720faj.71.1268753875247; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (pool-96-236-115-3.spfdma.east.verizon.net [96.236.115.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z10sm8842996fka.31.2010.03.16.08.37.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4b9fa5d2.0a4d5e0a.0c0b.ffffdcbb@mx.google.com> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:37:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Ben Gamari To: Olly Betts , martin f krafft In-Reply-To: <20100316110846.GK10323@survex.com> References: <4b9dccc0.c6c1f10a.3671.44ec@mx.google.com> <20100315090401.GA29891@glaive.weftsoar.net> <4b9e6e80.09b6660a.6769.6832@mx.google.com> <20100316110846.GK10323@survex.com> Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [notmuch] Notmuch performance (literally, in my case) X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:37:57 -0000 On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:08:47 +0000, Olly Betts wrote: > For the issue of a background task interfering with interactive use, the feel > arguably matters more than the throughput. > > I'll probably put that patch in 1.0.19, and look at moving all the fdatasync() > calls together. This is http://trac.xapian.org/ticket/426 BTW. > > The kernel should be able to handle this workload better though, so I would > say it was worthwhile to bring up on LKML if you have the energy. It certainly > isn't just you, as apt-xapian-index seems to trigger it for some Ubuntu users, > and madduck mentioned it on #notmuch a week or so ago. Alright. This issue has been bothering me for a very long time and it's frankly pretty pathetic how badly the kernel falls apart under this sort of workload. I just wrote up a message (4b9fa440.12135e0a.7fc8.ffffe745@mx.google.com), so we'll see what happens. In the past kernel developers have been very eager to write this issue off as not reproducible enough (perhaps wisely), so if anyone has anything to say, please contribute it to the thread. Thanks! - Ben