From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:53:58 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] modified segq for 2.5 In-Reply-To: <20020909233211.GI18800@holomorphy.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Andrew Morton , sfkaplan@cs.amherst.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> Ideally some distinction would be nice, even if only to distinguish I/O > >> demanded to be done directly by the workload from background writeback > >> and/or readahead. > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 07:54:29PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > OK, are we talking about page replacement or does queue scanning > > have priority over the quality of page replacement ? ;) > > This is relatively tangential. The concern expressed has more to do > with VM writeback starving workload-issued I/O than page replacement. If that happens, the asynchronous writeback threshold should be lower. Maybe we could even tune this dynamically ... Compromising on page replacement is generally a Bad Idea(tm) because page faults are expensive, very expensive. Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org -- 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/