[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: merging the per-bdi writeback patchset

> On Tue, Jun 23 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:11:56 +0200 Jens Axboe <> wrote:
> >
> > > Things are looking good for this patchset and it's been in -next for
> > > almost a week without any reports of problems. So I'd like to merge it
> > > for 2.6.31 if at all possible. Any objections?
> >
> > erk. I was rather expecting I'd have time to have a look at it all.
> OK, we can wait if we have to, just trying to avoid having to keep this
> fresh for one full cycle. I have posted this patchset 11 times though
> over months, so it's not like it's a new piece of work :-)
> > It's unclear to me actually _why_ the performance changes which were
> > observed have actually occurred. In fact it's a bit unclear (to me)
> > why the patchset was written and what it sets out to achieve :(
> It started out trying to get rid of the pdflush uneven writeout. If you
> look at various pdflush intensive workloads, even on a single disk you
> often have 5 or more pdflush threads working the same device. It's just
> not optimal. Another issue was starvation with request allocation. Given
> that pdflush does non-blocking writes (it has to, by design), pdflush
> can potentially be starved if someone else is working the device.

Can you please make reproduce program and post mesurement result?
I hope to mesure the same program on my box.

Plus, Can you please write more vervose patch description? your patch is a
bit harder review.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-23 12:31    [W:0.060 / U:4.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site