linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] vm: Add an tuning knob for vm.max_writeback

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1251876908.7547.54.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:35:08 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com,
	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 16:27 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:

> > So perhaps the best argument for not making this be a tunable is that
> > in the long run, we will need to put in a better algorithm for
> > controlling how much writeback we want to do before we start
> > saturating RAID arrays, and in that new algorithm this tunable may no
> > longer make sense.  Fine; at that point, we can make it go away.  For
> > now, though, it seems to be the best way to tweak what is going on,
> > since I doubt we'll be able to come up with one magic number that will
> > satisfy everyone.

Also, what is the incentive to actually improve the situation once we
merge this? People will say, turn the knob and don't bother us.
--
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/