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]

Message-ID: <20100726031744.GA9489@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:17:44 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.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 Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:11:37AM +0800, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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 :)

I totally ignored the 1TB systems out of this topic, because in such
systems, <PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER pages are easily available? :)

> Not sure what the best approach is, just pointing out
> that DEF_PRIORITY/3 may be too much for large systems...

What if DEF_PRIORITY/3 is used under PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER?

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/