lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Converting writeback linked lists to a tree based data structure
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:41:09AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> writes:
> >
> > Suppose we want to grant longer expiration window for temp files,
> > adding a new list named s_dirty_tmpfile would be a handy solution.
>
> How would the kernel know that a file is a tmp file?

No idea - but it makes a good example ;-)

But for those making different filesystems for /tmp, /var, /data etc,
per-superblock expiration parameters may help.

> > So the question is: should we need more than 3 QoS classes?
>
> [just a random idea; i have not worked out all the implications]
>
> Would it be possible to derive a writeback apriority from the ionice
> level of the process originating the IO? e.g. we have long standing
> problems that background jobs even when niced and can cause
> significant slow downs to foreground processes by starving IO
> and pushing out pages. ionice was supposed to help with that
> but in practice it does not seem to have helped too much and I suspect
> it needs more prioritization higher up the VM food chain. Adding
> such priorities to writeback would seem like a step in the right
> direction, although it would of course not solve the problem
> completely.

Good idea. Michael may well be considering similar interfaces :-)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-18 09:21    [W:0.115 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site