![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:05:13PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: >> Ok perhaps the new adaptive dirty limits helps your single disk >> a lot too. But your improvements seem to be more "collateral damage" @) >> >> But if that was true it might be enough to just change the dirty limits >> to get the same effect on your system. You might want to play with >> /proc/sys/vm/dirty_* > > The adaptive dirty limit is per task so it can't be reproduced with > global sysctl. It made quite some difference when I researched into it > in function of time. This isn't in function of time but it certainly > makes a lot of difference too, actually it's the most important part > of the patchset for most people, the rest is for the corner cases that > aren't handled right currently (writing to a slow device with > writeback cache has always been hanging the whole thing). Self-tuning > static sysctl's. The last years we needed to use very small values for dirty_ratio and dirty_background_ratio to soften the latency problems we have during sustained writes. Imo these patches really help in many cases, please commit to mainline. -- Leroy - 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: 2007-09-04 09:41 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||