On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:18:52 -0400
Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 08:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:21:51 -0400
> > Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Exactly how would a request limit help? All that boils down to is having
> > > the VM monitor global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) versus monitoring
> > > global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY)+global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK).
> > >
> >
> > I assume that if NFS is not limiting its NR_WRITEBACK consumption and block
> > devices are doing so, we could get in a situation where NFS hogs all of the
> > fixed-size NR_DIRTY+NR_WRITEBACK resource at the expense of concurrent
> > block-device-based writeback.
>
> Since NFS has no control over NR_DIRTY, how does controlling
> NR_WRITEBACK help? The only resource that NFS shares with the block
> device writeout queues is memory.
Block devices have a limit on the amount of IO which they will queue. NFS
doesn't.
> IOW: The resource that needs to be controlled is the dirty pages, not
> the write-out queue. Unless you can throttle back on the creation of
> dirty NFS pages in the first place, then the potential for unfairness
> will exist.
Please read the whole thread - we're violently agreeing.
-
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]
