[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1262803927.4251.133.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:52:07 -0500
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Steve Rago <sar@...-labs.com>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jens.axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Peter Staubach <staubach@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve the performance of large sequential write NFS
workloads
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 19:37 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 13:26 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > OK. It looks as if the only key to finding out how many unstable writes
> > we have is to use global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS), so we can't
> > specifically target our own backing-dev.
>
> Would be a simple matter of splitting BDI_UNSTABLE out from
> BDI_RECLAIMABLE, no?
>
> Something like
OK. How about if we also add in a bdi->capabilities flag to tell that we
might have BDI_UNSTABLE? That would allow us to avoid the potentially
expensive extra calls to bdi_stat() and bdi_stat_sum() for the non-nfs
case?
Cheers
Trond
--
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