[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110714154915.GV7529@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:49:15 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
XFS <xfs@....sgi.com>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm: writeback: Prioritise dirty inodes encountered
by direct reclaim for background flushing
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:09:59AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > It is preferable that no dirty pages are dispatched from the page
> > reclaim path. If reclaim is encountering dirty pages, it implies that
> > either reclaim is getting ahead of writeback or use-once logic has
> > prioritise pages for reclaiming that are young relative to when the
> > inode was dirtied.
>
> what does this buy us?
Very little. The vague intention was to avoid a situation where kswapds
priority was raised such that it had to write pages to clean a
particular zone.
> If at all we should prioritize by a zone,
> e.g. tell write_cache_pages only to bother with writing things out
> if the dirty page is in a given zone. We'd probably still cluster
> around it to make sure we get good I/O patterns, but would only start
> I/O if it has a page we actually care about.
>
That would make more sense. I've dropped this patch entirely.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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