lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/6] writeback: the kupdate expire timestamp should be a moving target
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:52:00PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:09:30PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Dynamicly compute the dirty expire timestamp at queue_io() time.
> > Also remove writeback_control.older_than_this which is no longer used.
> >
> > writeback_control.older_than_this used to be determined at entrance to
> > the kupdate writeback work. This _static_ timestamp may go stale if the
> > kupdate work runs on and on. The flusher may then stuck with some old
> > busy inodes, never considering newly expired inodes thereafter.
> >
> > This has two possible problems:
> >
> > - It is unfair for a large dirty inode to delay (for a long time) the
> > writeback of small dirty inodes.
> >
> > - As time goes by, the large and busy dirty inode may contain only
> > _freshly_ dirtied pages. Ignoring newly expired dirty inodes risks
> > delaying the expired dirty pages to the end of LRU lists, triggering
> > the very bad pageout(). Neverthless this patch merely addresses part
> > of the problem.
> >
> > CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
>
> Again, makes sense and I can't see a problem. There are some worth
> smithing issues in the changelog such as Dynamicly -> Dynamically and

Hah forgot to enable spell checking.

> s/writeback_control.older_than_this used/writeback_control.older_than_this is used/

It's "used to", my god.

> but other than that.
>
> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>

Thanks,
Fengguang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-26 13:35    [W:0.270 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site