[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
    On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > Bill Davidsen wrote:
    > >
    > > Finally, I doubt that any of this will address my biggest problem with
    > > Linux, which is that as memory gets cheap a program doing significant disk
    > > writing can get buffers VERY full (perhaps a while CD worth) before the
    > > kernel decides to do the write, at which point the system becomes
    > > non-responsive for seconds at a time while the disk light comes on and
    > > stays on.

    > /proc/sys/vm/bdflush: Decreasing the kupdate interval from five
    > seconds, decreasing the nfract and nfract_sync setting in there
    > should smooth this out. The -aa patches add start and stop
    > levels for bdflush as well, which means that bdflush can be the
    > one who blocks on IO rather than your process. And it means that
    > the request queue doesn't get 100% drained as soon as the writer
    > hits nfract_sync.

    Been there, done that. Makes it "less bad" if the right settings are
    chosen. I will try -aa on 2.4.18-pre3 (or 4 if the patch is out), I've
    been trying -ac this morning. Looking at the code, it doesn't look as if
    the logic is what I want to see, no matter how tuned. last night I tried a
    patch, and several of the "unued" elements in the bdflush were reused, but
    I froze w/o any io for seconds, so I don't have it right.

    What I want is a smooth increase in how mush is written as the dirty
    buffers increase. Percentage of {anything} may be the wrong thing to use,
    the problem is dirty buffers vs. disk write bandwidth, on a 2GB machine
    it's a smaller percentage than 128M machine, but the absolute numbers seem
    to be similar.

    > All very interesting and it will be fun to play with when it
    > *finally* gets merged.
    > But with the current elevator design, disk read latencies will
    > still be painful.

    There are a few patches around to change that. Note I didn't say "fix"
    just change.

    Finally, one of my goals is to be able to keep a large free page pool. I
    have two apps which will suddenly need another 8MB or so, and if they have
    to wait for disk they become unpleasant. With current memory prices I
    don't mind "wasting" 256MB or so, if it means I get better response when I
    want it. This is all part of tuning the system to application, I certainly
    wouldn't use it on other machines.

    Better doc of bdflush wouldn't be amiss, either. When/if it stops changing
    I will clean up my notes from a stack of 3x5 cards to something useful and
    make them available. If there's a doc giving what the bdflush values do
    (in current kernels) and what happens when you change them, and what to
    tune first if you have this problem, I haven't found it.

    bill davidsen <>
    CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
    Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.024 / U:8.508 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site