lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/8] writeback: sync old inodes first in background writeback
    On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:37:09PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
    > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:11:59PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
    > > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 08:03:45PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
    > > >> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 07:43:20PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > > >> > Hi
    > > >> >
    > > >> > sorry for the delay.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > > Will you be picking it up or should I? The changelog should be more or less
    > > >> > > the same as yours and consider it
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > It'd be nice if the original tester is still knocking around and willing
    > > >> > > to confirm the patch resolves his/her problem. I am running this patch on
    > > >> > > my desktop at the moment and it does feel a little smoother but it might be
    > > >> > > my imagination. I had trouble with odd stalls that I never pinned down and
    > > >> > > was attributing to the machine being commonly heavily loaded but I haven't
    > > >> > > noticed them today.
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > It also needs an Acked-by or Reviewed-by from Kosaki Motohiro as it alters
    > > >> > > logic he introduced in commit [78dc583: vmscan: low order lumpy reclaim also
    > > >> > > should use PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC]
    > > >> >
    > > >> > My reviewing doesn't found any bug. however I think original thread have too many guess
    > > >> > and we need to know reproduce way and confirm it.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > At least, we need three confirms.
    > > >> >  o original issue is still there?
    > > >> >  o DEF_PRIORITY/3 is best value?
    > > >>
    > > >> I agree. Wu, how do you determine DEF_PRIORITY/3 of LRU?
    > > >> I guess system has 512M and 22M writeback pages.
    > > >> So you may determine it for skipping max 32M writeback pages.
    > > >> Is right?
    > > >
    > > > For 512M mem, DEF_PRIORITY/3 means 32M dirty _or_ writeback pages.
    > > > Because shrink_inactive_list() first calls
    > > > shrink_page_list(PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC) then optionally
    > > > shrink_page_list(PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC), so dirty pages will first be
    > > > converted to writeback pages and then optionally be waited on.
    > > >
    > > > The dirty/writeback pages may go up to 512M*20% = 100M. So 32M looks
    > > > a reasonable value.
    > >
    > > Why do you think it's a reasonable value?
    > > I mean why isn't it good 12.5% or 3.125%? Why do you select 6.25%?
    > > I am not against you. Just out of curiosity and requires more explanation.
    > > It might be thing _only I_ don't know. :(
    >
    > It's more or less random selected. I'm also OK with 3.125%. It's an
    > threshold to turn on some _last resort_ mechanism, so don't need to be
    > optimal..

    Okay. Why I had a question is that I don't want to add new magic value in
    VM without detailed comment.
    While I review the source code, I always suffer form it. :(
    Now we have a great tool called 'git'.
    Please write down why we select that number detaily when we add new
    magic value. :)

    Thanks, Wu.

    --
    Kind regards,
    Minchan Kim
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-07-26 18:33    [W:2.898 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site