Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:42:11 +1100 | From | Dave Chinner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/17] [RFC] soft and dynamic dirty throttling limits |
| |
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 10:56:39PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:12:28PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:41:19AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > I'm feeling relatively good about the first 14 patches to do IO-less > > > balance_dirty_pages() and larger writeback chunk size. I'll repost > > > them separately as v2 after returning to Shanghai. > > > > Going for as small as possible patchsets is a pretty good idea. Just > > getting the I/O less balance_dirty_pages on it's own would be a really > > good start, as that's one of the really criticial pieces of > > infrastructure that a lot of people are waiting for. Getting it into > > linux-mm/linux-next ASAP so that it gets a lot of testing would be > > highly useful. > > OK, I'll do a smaller IO-less balance_dirty_pages() patchset (it's > good to know which part is the most relevant one, which is not always > obvious by my limited field experiences), which will further reduce > the possible risk of unexpected regressions.
Which is good given the recent history of writeback mods. :/
> Currently the -mm tree includes Greg's patchset "memcg: per cgroup > dirty page accounting". I'm going to rebase my patches onto it, > however I'd like to first make sure if Greg's patches are going to be > pushed in the next merge window. I personally have no problem with > that. Andrew?
Well, I'd prefer that you provide a git tree that I can just pull into my current working branch to test. Having to pull in a thousand other changes to test your writeback changes makes it much harder for me as I'd have to establish a new stable performance/behavioural baseline before starting to analyse your series. If it's based on mainline then I've already got that baseline....
Cheers,
Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
| |