[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] writeback: reduce per-bdi dirty threshold ramp up time
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:31:22AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 06:04:44AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 13-04-11 16:59:41, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > Reduce the dampening for the control system, yielding faster
> > > convergence. The change is a bit conservative, as smaller values may
> > > lead to noticeable bdi threshold fluctuates in low memory JBOD setup.
> > >
> > > CC: Peter Zijlstra <>
> > > CC: Richard Kennedy <>
> > > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <>
> > Well, I have nothing against this change as such but what I don't like is
> > that it just changes magical +2 for similarly magical +0. It's clear that
> The patch tends to make the rampup time a bit more reasonable for
> common desktops. From 100s to 25s (see below).
> > this will lead to more rapid updates of proportions of bdi's share of
> > writeback and thread's share of dirtying but why +0? Why not +1 or -1? So
> Yes, it will especially be a problem on _small memory_ JBOD setups.
> Richard actually has requested for a much radical change (decrease by
> 6) but that looks too much.
> My team has a 12-disk JBOD with only 6G memory. The memory is pretty
> small as a server, but it's a real setup and serves well as the
> reference minimal setup that Linux should be able to run well on.

FWIW, linux runs on a lot of low power NAS boxes with jbod and/or
raid setups that have <= 1GB of RAM (many of them run XFS), so even
your setup could be considered large by a significant fraction of
the storage world. Hence you need to be careful of optimising for
what you think is a "normal" server, because there simply isn't such
a thing....


Dave Chinner

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-14 01:55    [W:0.053 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site