[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Buffer Memory

On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Rik van Riel wrote


> o Patch is reverse :)
> o This can give some nasty deadlocks, better would be to
> allocate one 'last' page to the buffer memory, call
> bdflush, schedule and return. This might give us enough
> delay to clear things up.
> o Something like this, written by me, got rejected by
> Linus once for the very same reason I just outlined :)

Astonished by this, because i've had the effect of VERY bad performance
and even locking up WITHOUT my patch.

But with it i never recognized a lockup and allways had sufficient
performance, while doing REALLY i/o intesive tests???
For example fsck'ing large filesystem (20GB++) while doing i/o on
other filesystems.

I'm not sure, why this patch can cause a deadlock, because a "return 0;"
is the "normal" case, if "__get_free_page" in "grow_buffers()" fails.




Systemmanagement Entwicklungsbereich 2 Deutsche Telekom AG
Entwicklungszentrum Darmstadt
Heinz Mauelshagen Otto-Roehm-Strasse 71c
Postfach 10 05 41 64205 Darmstadt
+49 6151 886-425

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.037 / U:0.704 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site