[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 0/7] cpuset writeback throttling
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

> See, here's my problem: we have a pile of new code which fixes some
> problem. But the problem seems to be fairly small - it only affects a
> small number of sophisticated users and they already have workarounds
> in place.

The workarounds, while restrictive of how you configure your cpusets, are
indeed effective.

> So the world wouldn't end if we just didn't merge it. Those users
> stick with their workarounds and the kernel remains simpler and
> smaller.

Agreed. This patchset is admittedly from a different time when cpusets
was the only relevant extension that needed to be done.

> How do we work out which is the best choice here? I don't have enough
> information to do this.

If we are to support memcg-specific dirty ratios, that requires the
aforementioned statistics to be collected so that the calculation is even
possible. The series at

is a step in that direction, although I'd prefer to see NR_UNSTABLE_NFS to
be extracted separately from MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_DIRTY so
throttle_vm_writeout() can also use the new statistics.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-05 23:09    [W:0.092 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site