[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RFC - how to balance Dirty+Writeback in the face of slow writeback.
    On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:24AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
    > On Fri, Aug 25 2006, Neil Brown wrote:
    > > I'm beginning to think that the current scheme really works very well
    > > - except for a few 'bugs'(*).
    > It works ok, but it makes it hard to experiment with larger queue depths
    > when the vm falls apart :-). It's not a big deal, though, even if the
    > design isn't very nice - nr_requests is not a well defined entity. It
    > can be anywhere from 512b to megabyte(s) in size. So throttling on X
    > number of requests tends to be pretty vague and depends hugely on the
    > workload (random vs sequential IO).

    So maybe we need a different control parameter - the amount of memory we
    allow to be backed up in a queue rather than the number of requests the
    queue can take...


    Dave Chinner
    Principal Engineer
    SGI Australian Software Group
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-28 03:31    [W:0.020 / U:37.432 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site