[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901080858500.3283@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:05:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: Increase dirty_ratio and dirty_background_ratio?
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> Does it make sense to hook into kupdate? If kupdate finds it can't meet
> the no-data-older-than 30 seconds target, it lowers the sync/async combo
> down to some reasonable bottom.
>
> If it finds it is going to sleep without missing the target, raise the
> combo up to some reasonable top.
I like autotuning, so that sounds like an intriguing approach. It's worked
for us before (ie VM).
That said, 30 seconds sounds like a _loong_ time for something like this.
I'd use the normal 5-second dirty_writeback_interval for this: if we can't
clean the whole queue in that normal background writeback interval, then
we try to lower the tagets. We already have that "congestion_wait()" thing
there, that would be a logical place, methinks.
I'm not sure how to raise them, though. We don't want to raise any limits
just because the user suddenly went idle. I think the raising should
happen if we hit the sync/async ratio, and we haven't lowered in the last
30 seconds or something like that.
Linus
--
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