linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] writeback: sync old inodes first in background 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:43:20 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] writeback: sync old inodes first in background writeback

Hi

sorry for the delay.

> Will you be picking it up or should I? The changelog should be more or less
> the same as yours and consider it
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> 
> It'd be nice if the original tester is still knocking around and willing
> to confirm the patch resolves his/her problem. I am running this patch on
> my desktop at the moment and it does feel a little smoother but it might be
> my imagination. I had trouble with odd stalls that I never pinned down and
> was attributing to the machine being commonly heavily loaded but I haven't
> noticed them today.
> 
> It also needs an Acked-by or Reviewed-by from Kosaki Motohiro as it alters
> logic he introduced in commit [78dc583: vmscan: low order lumpy reclaim also
> should use PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC]

My reviewing doesn't found any bug. however I think original thread have too many guess
and we need to know reproduce way and confirm it.

At least, we need three confirms.
 o original issue is still there?
 o DEF_PRIORITY/3 is best value?
 o Current approach have better performance than Wu's original proposal? (below)


Anyway, please feel free to use my reviewed-by tag.

Thanks.



--- linux-next.orig/mm/vmscan.c	2010-06-24 14:32:03.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/vmscan.c	2010-07-22 16:12:34.000000000 +0800
@@ -1650,7 +1650,7 @@ static void set_lumpy_reclaim_mode(int p
 	 */
 	if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
 		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = 1;
-	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
+	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY / 2)
 		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = 1;
 	else
 		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = 0;

--
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/