Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:00:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:00:18 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:54026 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:00:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:29:01 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Chris Mason cc: Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [RFC] changes to buffer.c (was Test12 ll_rw_block error) In-Reply-To: <447650000.978031159@coffee> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Chris Mason wrote: > > Linus and Rik are cc'd in to find out if this is a good idea in > general. Probably. There are some arguments for starting the writeout early, but there are tons of arguments against it too (the main one being "avoid doing IO if you can do so"), so your patch is probably fine. In the end, the performance characteristics are what matters. Does the patch make for smoother behaviour and better performance? Anyway, the "can_get_io_locks" check is subsumed by the "launder_loop" check: we will never set "launder_loop" to non-zero if we can't get the io_locks, so you might as well just make the test be /* First loop through? Don't start IO, just move it to the back of the list */ if (!launder_loop) { .... and be done with it. I'd like to hear what that does for dbench. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/