From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
Ben LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][DATA] re "ongoing vm suckage"
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0108032003200.15155-100000@penguin.transmeta.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0108040506570N.01827@starship>
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> Nice shooting, this could explain the effect I noticed where
> writing a linker file takes 8 times longer when competing with
> a simultaneous grep.
Just remove that whole logic - it's silly and broken. That's _not_ where
the logic should be anyway.
The whole "we don't want to have too many queued requests" logic in that
place is just stupid. Let's go through this:
- we have read requests, and we have write requests.
- we _NEVER_ want to have a read request trigger this logic. When we
start a read, we'll eventually wait on it, so readers will always
throttle themselves. If readers do huge amounts of read-ahead, that's
still ok. We're much better off just blocking in the request allocation
layer.
- writers are different. Writers write in big chunks, and they should
wait for themselves, not on others. See write_locked_buffers() in
recent kernels: that makes "sync()" a very nice player. It just waits
every NRSYNC blocks (for "sync", NRSYNC is a low 32 buffers, which is
just 128kB at a time. That's fine, because "sync" is not performance
critical. Other writeouts might want to have slightly bigger blocking
factors).
Agreed? Let's just remove the broken code in ll_rw_block() - it's not as
if most people even _use_ ll_rw_block() for writing at all any more.
(Yeah, fsync_inode_buffers() does, and would probably speed up by using
the same approach "sync" does - it not only gives nicer behaviour under
load, it also reduces spinlock contention and CPU usage by a LOT).
Oh, and "flush_dirty_buffers()" is _really_ broken. I wanted to clean that
up use the sync code too, but I was too lazy.
> Umm.... Hmm, there are lots more solutions than that, but those two
> are nice and simple. A quick test for (1) I hope Ben will try is
> just to set high_queued_sectors = low_queued_sectors.
Please just remove the code instead. I don't think it buys you anything.
Linus
--
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/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-08-04 3:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-08-03 23:44 Ben LaHaise
2001-08-04 1:29 ` Rik van Riel
2001-08-04 3:06 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-04 3:13 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2001-08-04 3:23 ` Rik van Riel
2001-08-04 3:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-04 3:26 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-08-04 3:34 ` Rik van Riel
2001-08-04 3:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-04 3:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-04 4:14 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-08-04 4:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-04 4:39 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-08-04 4:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-04 5:13 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-08-04 5:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-04 6:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-04 5:38 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2001-08-04 7:13 ` Rik van Riel
2001-08-04 23:28 ` [PATCH] Unlazy activate (was: re "ongoing vm suckage") Daniel Phillips
2001-08-04 14:22 ` [RFC][DATA] re "ongoing vm suckage" Mike Black
2001-08-04 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-04 20:54 ` Jonathan Morton
2001-08-05 4:19 ` Michael Rothwell
2001-08-05 18:40 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2001-08-05 20:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-06 20:32 ` Rob Landley
2001-08-05 15:24 ` Mike Black
2001-08-05 20:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-05 20:23 ` Alan Cox
2001-08-05 20:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-04 16:21 ` Mark Hemment
2001-08-07 15:45 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-08-07 16:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-07 16:51 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-08-07 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-07 18:17 ` Andrew Morton
2001-08-07 18:40 ` Ben LaHaise
2001-08-07 21:33 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 21:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-07 17:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-07 17:11 ` Rik van Riel
2001-08-07 19:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-07 19:21 ` Rik van Riel
2001-08-07 20:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-07 23:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-07 17:26 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-07 18:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 18:40 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-07 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-07 20:22 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-08 1:08 ` Theodore Tso
2001-08-08 1:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-08-08 2:25 ` Marcelo Tosatti
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.33.0108032003200.15155-100000@penguin.transmeta.com \
--to=torvalds@transmeta.com \
--cc=bcrl@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=phillips@bonn-fries.net \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox