[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1251830335.8502.17.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:38:55 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
tytso@....edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] vm: Add an tuning knob for vm.max_writeback_pages
On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 13:19 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Originally, MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES was hard-coded to 1024 because of a
> concern of not holding I_SYNC for too long. (At least, that was the
> comment previously.) This doesn't make sense now because the only
> time we wait for I_SYNC is if we are calling sync or fsync, and in
> that case we need to write out all of the data anyway. Previously
> there may have been other code paths that waited on I_SYNC, but not
> any more.
>
> According to Christoph, the current writeback size is way too small,
> and XFS had a hack that bumped out nr_to_write to four times the value
> sent by the VM to be able to saturate medium-sized RAID arrays. This
> value was also problematic for ext4 as well, as it caused large files
> to be come interleaved on disk by in 8 megabyte chunks (we bumped up
> the nr_to_write by a factor of two).
>
> So, in this patch, we make the MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES a tunable, and
> change the default to be 32768 blocks.
Do we really need a tunable for this?
I guess we need a limit to avoid it writing out everything, but can't we
have something automagic?
--
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