From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADD46B004F for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:46:01 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] bump up nr_to_write in xfs_vm_writepage Message-ID: <20090707144601.GA705@infradead.org> References: <4A4D26C5.9070606@redhat.com> <20090707101946.GB1934@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Olaf Weber Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Eric Sandeen , linux-mm@kvack.org, "MASON, CHRISTOPHER" , xfs mailing list List-ID: On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Olaf Weber wrote: > > In theory it should. But given the amazing feedback of the VM people > > on this I'd rather make sure we do get the full HW bandwith on large > > arrays instead of sucking badly and not just wait forever. > > So how do you feel about making the fudge factor tunable? I don't > have a good sense myself of what the value should be, whether the > hard-coded 4 is good enough in general. A tunable means exposing an ABI, which I'd rather not do for a hack like this. If you don't like the number feel free to experiment around with it, SGI should have enough large systems that can be used to test this out. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org