[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:0.022 / U:12.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site