Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:07:41 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] improve the performance of large sequential write NFS workloads |
| |
* Steve Rago <sar@nec-labs.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 20:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Steve Rago <sar@nec-labs.com> wrote: > > > > > > Also, I don't think this needs to have a sysctl, it should just work. > > > > > > The sysctl is a *good thing* in that it allows the eager writeback behavior > > > to be tuned and shut off if need be. I can only test the changes on a > > > finite set of systems, so better safe than sorry. > > > > This issue has been settled many years ago and that's not what we do in the > > Linux kernel. We prefer patches to core code where we are reasonably sure they > > result in good behavior - and then we fix bugs in the new behavior, if any. > > > > (Otherwise odd sysctls would mushroom quickly and the system would become > > untestable in practice.) > > > > Ingo > > I don't disagree, but "that's not what we do" hardly provides insight into > making the judgment call. [...]
I gave you an example of the problems that arise, see the last sentence above.
> [...] In this case, the variety of combinations of NFS server speed, NFS > client speed, transmission link speed, client memory size, and server memory > size argues for a tunable parameter, because one value probably won't work > well in all combinations. Making it change dynamically based on these > parameters is more complicated than these circumstances call for, IMHO.
So having crappy tunables is the reason to introduce even more tunables? I think you just gave a good second example of why we dont want sysctls for features like this.
Ingo
| |