From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BCBCD6B01F1 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:19:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Nikanth Karthikesan Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Per file dirty limit throttling Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:52:04 +0530 References: <201008160949.51512.knikanth@suse.de> <201008171039.23701.knikanth@suse.de> <1282033475.1926.2093.camel@laptop> In-Reply-To: <1282033475.1926.2093.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201008181452.05047.knikanth@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Wu Fengguang , Bill Davidsen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jens Axboe , Andrew Morton , Jan Kara List-ID: On Tuesday 17 August 2010 13:54:35 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 10:39 +0530, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > > Oh, nice. Per-task limit is an elegant solution, which should help > > during most of the common cases. > > > > But I just wonder what happens, when > > 1. The dirtier is multiple co-operating processes > > 2. Some app like a shell script, that repeatedly calls dd with seek and > > skip? People do this for data deduplication, sparse skipping etc.. > > 3. The app dies and comes back again. Like a VM that is rebooted, and > > continues writing to a disk backed by a file on the host. > > > > Do you think, in those cases this might still be useful? > > Those cases do indeed defeat the current per-task-limit, however I think > the solution to that is to limit the amount of writeback done by each > blocked process. > Blocked on what? Sorry, I do not understand. Thanks Nikanth > Jan Kara had some good ideas in that department. > -- 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