[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070827122738.GA6999@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:27:38 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] [RFC][PATCH] clustered writeback
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 05:03:36AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:21:52 +0800
> >
> > Because it does the work in small batches of 10 inodes, when the
> > system has <=10 dirty inodes, its behavior will reduce to:
> > - do a full sweep *at once* on every 25s
> > Which means the disk will flicker once every 25s, not bad :)
>
> 25 seconds is quite not good already though.... it takes a disk a
> second or two of no activity to go into low power mode, every 25
> seconds means you now have at least a 10% constant power cost....
>
> I don't know the right answer (well other than "make sure inodes aren't
> dirty", which involves fixing apps to not do as much file operations,
> as well as relatime) but just "every 25s is no big deal" isn't really
> the case ;-(
Yeah, 25s may be too frequent... What I meant is that the old behavior
could be "write 1-3 inodes on every 5s" if the inodes are dirtied at
random times. Now it becomes "write 10 inodes on every 25s". So it is
actually better ;-)
It's interesting that we want writeback to be smooth on heavy loads
and to be 'bursty' on light loads. Increasing dirty_expire_centisecs
and decreasing dirty_writeback_centisecs could help it somehow.
-
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