lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16


On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll send you a patch which makes the VM less inclined to page things
> > > > out in the presence of heavy writes, and which decreases read
> > > > latencies.
> > > >
> > > Is this patch posted anywhere?
> >
> > I sent it yesterday, in this thread. Here it is again.
> >
> > Description:
> >
> > - Account for locked as well as dirty buffers when deciding
> > to throttle writers.
>
> Just one thing: If we have lots of locked buffers due to reads we are
> going to may unecessarily block writes, and thats not any good.
>
> But well, I prefer to fix interactivity than to care about that one kind
> of workload, so I'm ok with it.
>
> > - Tweak VM to make it work the inactive list harder, before starting
> > to evict pages or swap.
>
> I would like to see he interactivity problems get fixed on block layer
> side first: Its not a VM issue initially. Actually, the thing is that if
> you tweak VM this way you're going to break some workloads.
>
> > - Change the elevator so that once a request's latency has
> > expired, we can still perform merges in front of that
> > request. But we no longer will insert new requests in
> > front of that request.
>
> Sounds fine... I've received quite many success reports already, right ?

Err...

s/I/you/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.071 / U:11.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site