lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16


    On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > Mike Fedyk wrote:
    > >
    > > > I'll send you a patch which makes the VM less inclined to page things
    > > > out in the presence of heavy writes, and which decreases read
    > > > latencies.
    > > >
    > > Is this patch posted anywhere?
    >
    > I sent it yesterday, in this thread. Here it is again.
    >
    > Description:
    >
    > - Account for locked as well as dirty buffers when deciding
    > to throttle writers.

    Just one thing: If we have lots of locked buffers due to reads we are
    going to may unecessarily block writes, and thats not any good.

    But well, I prefer to fix interactivity than to care about that one kind
    of workload, so I'm ok with it.

    > - Tweak VM to make it work the inactive list harder, before starting
    > to evict pages or swap.

    I would like to see he interactivity problems get fixed on block layer
    side first: Its not a VM issue initially. Actually, the thing is that if
    you tweak VM this way you're going to break some workloads.

    > - Change the elevator so that once a request's latency has
    > expired, we can still perform merges in front of that
    > request. But we no longer will insert new requests in
    > front of that request.

    Sounds fine... I've received quite many success reports already, right ?

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.027 / U:31.432 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site