[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090925003820.GK2662@think>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:38:20 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"richard@....demon.co.uk" <richard@....demon.co.uk>,
"jens.axboe@...cle.com" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: regression in page writeback
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:11:17AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:15:08AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:00:58PM +0800, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > The only place that actually honors the congestion flag is pdflush.
> > > It's trivial to get pdflush backed up and make it sit down without
> > > making any progress because once the queue congests, pdflush goes away.
> >
> > Right. I guess that's more or less intentional - to give lowest priority
> > to periodic/background writeback.
>
> IMO, this is the wrong design. Background writeback should
> have higher CPU/scheduler priority than normal tasks. If there is
> sufficient dirty pages in the system for background writeback to
> be active, it should be running *now* to start as much IO as it can
> without being held up by other, lower priority tasks.
I'd say that an fsync from mutt or vi should be done at a higher prio
than a background streaming writer.
-chris
--
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