[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JFkHy-0001jR-VD@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:01:14 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Converting writeback linked lists to a tree based data structure
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:41:09AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn> writes:
> >
> > Suppose we want to grant longer expiration window for temp files,
> > adding a new list named s_dirty_tmpfile would be a handy solution.
>
> How would the kernel know that a file is a tmp file?
No idea - but it makes a good example ;-)
But for those making different filesystems for /tmp, /var, /data etc,
per-superblock expiration parameters may help.
> > So the question is: should we need more than 3 QoS classes?
>
> [just a random idea; i have not worked out all the implications]
>
> Would it be possible to derive a writeback apriority from the ionice
> level of the process originating the IO? e.g. we have long standing
> problems that background jobs even when niced and can cause
> significant slow downs to foreground processes by starving IO
> and pushing out pages. ionice was supposed to help with that
> but in practice it does not seem to have helped too much and I suspect
> it needs more prioritization higher up the VM food chain. Adding
> such priorities to writeback would seem like a step in the right
> direction, although it would of course not solve the problem
> completely.
Good idea. Michael may well be considering similar interfaces :-)
--
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