[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070406040035.2f1e1105.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 04:00:35 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
miklos@...redi.hu, neilb@...e.de, dgc@....com,
tomoki.sekiyama.qu@...achi.com, nikita@...sterfs.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:01:57 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:42:21 +0200
> > root@...gramming.kicks-ass.net wrote:
> >
> > > Now that we have per BDI dirty throttling is makes sense to also have oer BDI
> > > congestion feedback; why wait on another device if the current one is not
> > > congested.
> >
> > Similar comments apply. congestion_wait() should be called
> > throttle_at_a_rate_proportional_to_the_speed_of_presently_uncongested_queues().
> >
> > If a process is throttled in the page allocator waiting for pages to become
> > reclaimable, that process absolutely does not care whether those pages were
> > previously dirty against /dev/sda or against /dev/sdb. It wants to be woken
> > up for writeout completion against any queue.
>
> OK, so you disagree with Miklos' 2nd point here:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/4/137
Yup, silly man thought that "congestion_wait" has something to do with
congestion ;) I think it sort-of used to, once.
Now it really means no more than "block until a batch of writes complete".
-
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