Thanks.
The BDI dirty limits sounds like a good idea.
Is there already a patch for this, which I could try?
I believe it works like this,
Each BDI, will have a limit. If the dirty_thresh exceeds the limit,
all the I/O on the block device will be synchronous.
so, if I have sda & a NFS mount, the dirty limit can be different for
each of them.
I can set dirty limit for
- sda to be 90% and
- NFS mount to be 50%.
So, if the dirty limit is greater than 50%, NFS does synchronously,
but sda can work asynchronously, till dirty limit reaches 90%.
Thanks
--Chakri
On 9/27/07, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:50 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > What we _don't_ want to happen is for other processes which are writing to
> > other, non-dead devices to get collaterally blocked. We have patches which
> > might fix that queued for 2.6.24. Peter?
>
> Nasty problem, don't do that :-)
>
> But yeah, with per BDI dirty limits we get stuck at whatever ratio that
> NFS server/mount (?) has - which could be 100%. Other processes will
> then work almost synchronously against their BDIs but it should work.
>
> [ They will lower the NFS-BDI's ratio, but some fancy clipping code will
> limit the other BDIs their dirty limit to not exceed the total limit.
> And with all these NFS pages stuck, that will still be nothing. ]
>
>
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
