Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752502AbZIEQST (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:18:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752155AbZIEQSS (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:18:18 -0400 Received: from lon1-post-1.mail.demon.net ([195.173.77.148]:58307 "EHLO lon1-post-1.mail.demon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751160AbZIEQSR (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:18:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] vm: Add an tuning knob for vm.max_writeback_mb From: Richard Kennedy To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chris.mason@oracle.com, david@fromorbit.com, hch@infradead.org, tytso@mit.edu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.cz In-Reply-To: <20090905132653.GH24516@shareable.org> References: <1252050406-22467-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1252050406-22467-9-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <4AA13232.5000309@rsk.demon.co.uk> <20090905132653.GH24516@shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:18:16 +0100 Message-Id: <1252167496.2291.15.camel@castor> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1581 Lines: 40 On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 14:26 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Richard Kennedy wrote: > > I've been testing this & it works pretty well here, but setting > > max_writeback_mb to 128 seems much too large for normal desktop machines. > > > > Because it is so large the background writes don't stop when they get > > down to the background threshold, but just keep on writing. > > background_threshold on my machine is only about 300Mb so it can > > undershoot by quite a bit. This could impact random write workloads > > significantly. > > If that's true, would it be even worse for embedded devices with, say, > just 32MB RAM? It sounds like writeback undershoot might be rather > extreme in that case. Well, on a machine that small I don't think it will be any worse. The current code tries to write 1024 pages so its undershoot will be about 100% anyway. > Also on this topic, should max_writeback be smaller for slow disks? I > have a small device here with a hard disk that can only be written at > 2-10MB/s due to limitations of the built-in IDE controller. > > I know that's unusual, but it shows there is quite a wide range of > speeds at which disks can be written, even just counting hard disks. > > -- Jamie I'm not sure about that, it will depend on how the background threshold issue gets fixed. regards Richard -- 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/