[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 18:37:08 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Itaru Kitayama <kitayama@...bb4u.ne.jp>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] writeback: refill b_io iff empty
On Wed 04-05-11 15:39:31, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> To help understand the behavior change, I wrote the writeback_queue_io
> trace event, and found very different patterns between
> - vanilla kernel
> - this patchset plus the sync livelock fixes
>
> Basically the vanilla kernel each time pulls a random number of inodes
> from b_dirty, while the patched kernel tends to pull a fixed number of
> inodes (enqueue=1031) from b_dirty. The new behavior is very interesting...
This regularity is really strange. Did you have a chance to look more into
it? I find it highly unlikely that there would be exactly 1031 dirty inodes
in b_dirty list every time you call move_expired_inodes()...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists