[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB0BA7B.1050200@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 16:55:39 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 00/16] [FS, MM, block, MMC]: eMMC High Priority Interrupt
Feature
On 05/14/2012 04:43 PM, mani wrote:
> Dear Kim,
>
> I have a query here ..
>
>
> My point is that it would be better for read to not preempt
> write-for-page_reclaim.
> And we can identify it by PG_reclaim. You can get the idea.
>
> I think If there is no page available then no read will proceed.
> When read request comes it reclaim the pages (starts the write if
> syncable pages ) and get back after reclaiming the pages.
> Only then a read request will come to the MMC subsystem.
> And i think the reclaim algorithm will reclaim some substantial amount
> of pages at a time instead of a single page.
> So if we get few pages during the reclamation so there will be no
> problem in halting the another write ops for proceeding the reads ?
>
> Can we think of a scenario when we are reclaiming the pages and write
> ops is going on where as a high priority read for the interrupt handler
> is pending ?
>
> Please correct me if i am wrong.
For example, System can have lots of order-0 pages but little order-big pages.
In this case, for getting big contiguos memory, reclaimer should write out
dirty pages while it can handle order-0 page read request.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Manish
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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