Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:11:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:11:20 -0500 Received: from pc-62-31-66-84-ed.blueyonder.co.uk ([62.31.66.84]:16769 "EHLO sisko.scot.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:11:20 -0500 Subject: Re: 2.4.21-pre2 stalls out when running unixbench From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Andrew Morton Cc: Joe Korty , Andreas Dilger , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, riel@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@sgi.com, Stephen Tweedie In-Reply-To: <3E19739F.84C57EFC@digeo.com> References: <3E16C171.BFEA45AE@digeo.com> <1041855042.2690.2.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> <3E19739F.84C57EFC@digeo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 06 Jan 2003 13:23:55 +0000 Message-Id: <1041859435.2691.51.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 866 Lines: 25 Hi, On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 12:16, Andrew Morton wrote: > Well personally I prefer slow-and-safe. But we could make 2.4 > do what 2.5 is doing - one pass through the superblocks to start > the syncs and a second pass to wait on them all. The 2.5 approach has the problem that it can start queuing writeback for multiple fs'es on the same disk at the same time --- I wouldn't be surprised if it increases thrashing in that case. But I guess I'm not too concerned about sync() performance itself, as long as the in-kernel background writeback is being done sensibly. > This is fragile stuff though.... Yep. --Stephen - 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/