Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756298AbXLKUH7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:07:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752322AbXLKUHw (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:07:52 -0500 Received: from phunq.net ([64.81.85.152]:56232 "EHLO moonbase.phunq.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751511AbXLKUHv (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:07:51 -0500 From: Daniel Phillips To: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] A clean aEvgeniy pproach to writeout throttling Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:07:43 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra References: <200712051603.02183.phillips@phunq.net> <200712100617.24157.phillips@phunq.net> <20071211131514.GB25437@kernel.dk> In-Reply-To: <20071211131514.GB25437@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712111207.43156.phillips@phunq.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1647 Lines: 31 On Tuesday 11 December 2007 05:15, Jens Axboe wrote: > As to the patch in question "fixing" it in the block layer, it's a > fairly simple work around and I'm not totally against it. If you get > rid of the ->bi_throttle stuff and just do sanity checks on the > count, then we could look at getting some testing done. Oh, sorry I missed that olive branch on first read. Getting rid of those 8 bytes that bother you requires an extensive rethink of bio handling in order to make some fields that are not now constant, constant or at least restored on change. Which would be a good thing in itself. There are lots of good improvements that can be made to this subsystem along those lines. But that is properly a separate project. Quite some time will be needed to get it right, and should I mention it, everybody needs to be on the same page or the work will never start. It is therefore a theoretical solution. We have a practical, tested solution, here and now, and it is short enough to be understood, unlike any of the previous attempts. Your argument seems to be that adding 8 bytes to struct bio turns this beautiful swan into an ugly duck. Actually, because the throttling reduces the number of bios in flight in a busy system, total memory use is reduced. When the system is not busy, there are few bios hanging around so that is not a problem either. Nice, hmm? Daniel -- 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/