On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:04:38AM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
> Why is that useful? Don't we want (in general) to cache as many dirty
It allows all tasks to have a chance to take advantage of the writeback
cache, not only the first one like now.
> pages as possible in the hope that some of them will be re-dirtied (thus
> avoiding additional write) or truncated (avoiding write altogether)?
We could add an option to increase the per-task future_dirty pages only
if we had to allocate a new pagecache (i.e. cache miss), that
would leave the rewrite behaviour unchanged, but still if we've a huge
write-hog, we should reserve some cache for other people anyway, so I'm
unsure if we should allow rewriter-hogs to use half the ram and leave
nothing to the other potential small writers. Certainly accounting for
future_dirty only on cache-misses on the radix-tree would still catch
the bad untarring and cp beahviour just fine, so that might be good
enough and I would certainly agree that's more conservative approach.
Initially every task has access to the whole dirty cache, even "cp
/dev/zero ." initially allocates half the ram, but then if it keeps
writing that fast, the dirty cache decreases, to give a chance to other
tasks to avoid blocking while writing.
If the write-hog becomes reasoanable and it slowdown writing, it can
then use more dirty cache again.
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |