Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: stop balance_dirty_pages doing too much work | From | Richard Kennedy <> | Date | Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:36:01 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 14:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 11:38 +0100, Richard Kennedy wrote: ... > OK, so Chris ran into this bit yesterday, complaining that he'd only get > very few write requests and couldn't saturate his IO channel. > > Now, since writing out everything once there's something to do sucks for > Richard, but only writing out stuff when we're over the limit sucks for > Chris (since we can only be over the limit a little), the best thing > would be to only write out when we're over the background limit. Since > that is the low watermark we use for throttling it makes sense that we > try to write out when above that. > > However, since there's a lack of bdi_background_thresh, and I don't > think introducing one just for this is really justified. How about the > below? > > Chris how did this work for you? Richard, does this make things suck for > you again? > > --- > mm/page-writeback.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c > index 81627eb..92f42d6 100644 > --- a/mm/page-writeback.c > +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c > @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping) > * threshold otherwise wait until the disk writes catch > * up. > */ > - if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) { > + if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh/2) { > writeback_inodes(&wbc); > pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write; > get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, > > I'll run some tests and let you know :)
But what if someone has changed the vm settings? Maybe something like (bdi_thresh * dirty_background_ratio / dirty_ratio) might be better ?
Chris, what sort of workload are you having problems with?
regards Richard
| |