Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:57:03 -0200 (BRST) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |