On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Perhaps our queues are too long - if the VFS _does_ back off, it'll take
> > some time for that to have an effect.
> >
> > Perhaps the fact that the queue size knows nothing about the _size_ of the
> > requests in the queue is a problem.
>
> It's complicated, the size may not matter a lot. 128 sequential 512kb IO
> may complete faster than 128 random 4kb IO's.
Yes, is there any way a queue could be limited to a certain amount of
'completion time' ?
> > Back away even further here.
> >
> > What user-visible problem(s) are we attemping to fix?
>
> I'd like innocent-app-doing-little-write-or-fsync not being stalled by
> big-bad-app-doing-lots-of-dirtying.
Could you please try this per BDI dirty limit -v7 patch series, the very
last patch tries to address this by taking the per task dirty rate into
account.
Although, on the fsync, ext3 seems to want to do a global fsync, which
will still make the experience suck. :-(
-
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]
