[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] pdflush fix and enhancement
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 14:27 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I say most because the assumption would be that we will be successful in
> > creating the new thread. Not that bad an assumption I think. Besides,
> And that the memory read is not reordered (rmb()).

At the risk of showing my b*tt here... I'm not very clear on memory
barriers, is this necessary even inside a critical region? (recall
we're protected by the spin lock). If so, does the barrier go after the
read, or before? (Thanks for not laughing, however grins are allowed)

> Ok it probably needs some kind of feedback mechanism.

Actually, I tend to think we need an entirely different approach to
flushing, please see my post to David Chinner which outlines some
thoughts. Basically a flushing heuristic that takes into account the
characteristics of the various block devices.

> >
> > I was thinking about a patch that would go both directions - forward and
> > reverse depending upon, say, a bit in jiffies... Certainly not perfect,
> > but a bit more fair.
> Better a real RNG. But such probalistic schemes unfortunately tend to drive
> benchmarkers crazy, that is why it is better to avoid them.

Nod, but that's ok. Having been one for several years I can truthfully
say that benchmarkers are a little crazy anyways... :-)

> I suppose you could just keep some state per fs to ensure fairness.

Nod, this would be ideal.


> -Andi

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-31 17:11    [W:0.113 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site