[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17888.14958.85897.289141@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:15:26 +0300
From: Nikita Danilov <nikita@...sterfs.com>
To: Tomoki Sekiyama <tomoki.sekiyama.qu@...achi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
miklos@...redi.hu, yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com,
yuji.kakutani.uw@...achi.com, soshima@...hat.com, haoki@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] VM throttling: avoid blocking occasional writers
Tomoki Sekiyama writes:
> Hi,
Hello,
>
[...]
>
> While Dirty+Writeback pages get more than 40% of memory, process-B is
> blocked in balance_dirty_pages() until writeback of some (`write_chunk',
> typically = 1536) dirty pages on disk-b is started.
May be the simpler solution is to use separate variables to control
ratelimit and write chunk?
writeback_set_ratelimit() adjusts ratelimit_pages to avoid too frequent
calls to balance_dirty_pages(), but once we are inside of
writeback_inodes(), there is no need to write especially many pages in
one go: overhead of any additional looping is negligible, when compared
with the cost of writing.
Speaking of which, now that expensive get_writeback_state() is gone from
page-writeback.c why do we need adjustable ratelimiting at all? It looks
like writeback_set_ratelimit() can be dropped, and fixed ratelimit used
instead.
Nikita.
-
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