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 SMTP id 9BCB36B02A4 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 06:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o6PAhMfU006354 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:43:22 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0419F45DE79 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:43:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B2345DE6F for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:43:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B00C21DB8040 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:43:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ACC21DB803A for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:43:21 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] writeback: sync old inodes first in background writeback In-Reply-To: <20100723105719.GE5300@csn.ul.ie> References: <20100723094515.GD5043@localhost> <20100723105719.GE5300@csn.ul.ie> Message-Id: <20100725192955.40D5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:43:20 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Wu Fengguang , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Dave Chinner , Chris Mason , Nick Piggin , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Minchan Kim List-ID: Hi sorry for the delay. > Will you be picking it up or should I? The changelog should be more or less > the same as yours and consider it > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > > It'd be nice if the original tester is still knocking around and willing > to confirm the patch resolves his/her problem. I am running this patch on > my desktop at the moment and it does feel a little smoother but it might be > my imagination. I had trouble with odd stalls that I never pinned down and > was attributing to the machine being commonly heavily loaded but I haven't > noticed them today. > > It also needs an Acked-by or Reviewed-by from Kosaki Motohiro as it alters > logic he introduced in commit [78dc583: vmscan: low order lumpy reclaim also > should use PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC] My reviewing doesn't found any bug. however I think original thread have too many guess and we need to know reproduce way and confirm it. At least, we need three confirms. o original issue is still there? o DEF_PRIORITY/3 is best value? o Current approach have better performance than Wu's original proposal? (below) Anyway, please feel free to use my reviewed-by tag. Thanks. --- linux-next.orig/mm/vmscan.c 2010-06-24 14:32:03.000000000 +0800 +++ linux-next/mm/vmscan.c 2010-07-22 16:12:34.000000000 +0800 @@ -1650,7 +1650,7 @@ static void set_lumpy_reclaim_mode(int p */ if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = 1; - else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) + else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY / 2) sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = 1; else sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = 0; -- 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