[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C4CFCE9.8070303@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:11:37 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
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>,
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
On 07/25/2010 11:08 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> We do need some throttling under memory pressure. However stall time
> more than 1s is not acceptable. A simple congestion_wait() may be
> better, since it waits on _any_ IO completion (which will likely
> release a set of PG_reclaim pages) rather than one specific IO
> completion. This makes much smoother stall time.
> wait_on_page_writeback() shall really be the last resort.
> DEF_PRIORITY/3 means 1/16=6.25%, which is closer.
I agree with the max 1 second stall time, but 6.25% of
memory could be an awful lot of pages to scan on a system
with 1TB of memory :)
Not sure what the best approach is, just pointing out
that DEF_PRIORITY/3 may be too much for large systems...
--
All rights reversed
--
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