Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S130429AbRCGH6z>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 02:58:55 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S130432AbRCGH6p>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 02:58:45 -0500
Received: from www.wen-online.de ([212.223.88.39]:19216 "EHLO wen-online.de")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S130429AbRCGH6d>;
	Wed, 7 Mar 2001 02:58:33 -0500
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:57:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Mike Galbraith <mikeg@wen-online.de>
X-X-Sender: <mikeg@mikeg.weiden.de>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch][rfc][rft] vm throughput 2.4.2-ac4
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103061917221.852-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0103070844450.1086-100000@mikeg.weiden.de>
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 Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > > > The merging at the elevator level only works if the requests sent to
> > > > > it are right next to each other on disk. This means that randomly
> > > > > sending stuff to disk really DOES DESTROY PERFORMANCE and there's
> > > > > nothing the elevator could ever hope to do about that.
> > > >
> > > > True to some (very real) extent because of the limited buffering
> > > > of requests.  However, I can not find any useful information
> > > > that the vm is using to guarantee the IT does not destroy
> > > > performance by your own definition.
> > >
> > > Indeed. IMHO we should fix this by putting explicit IO
> > > clustering in the ->writepage() functions.
> >
> > I notice there's a patch sitting in my mailbox.. think I'll go read
> > it and think (grunt grunt;) about this issue some more.
>
> Mike,
>
> One important information which is not being considered by
> page_launder() now the dirty buffers watermark.
>
> In general, it should not try to avoid writing dirty pages if we're above
> the dirty buffers watermark.

Agreed in theory.. I'll go try to measure.

	-Mike

-
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/