From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, jack@suse.cz,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
npiggin@suse.de
Subject: Re: Increase dirty_ratio and dirty_background_ratio?
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:48:23 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901080842180.3283@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090108.082413.156881254.davem@davemloft.net>
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 03:02:45 -0800
>
> > The kernel can't get this right - it doesn't know the usage
> > patterns/workloads, etc.
>
> I don't agree with that.
We can certainly try to tune it better.
And I do agree that we did a very drastic reduction in the dirty limits,
and we can probably look at raising it up a bit. I definitely do not want
to go back to the old 40% dirty model, but I could imagine 10/20% for
async/sync (it's 5/10 now, isn't it?)
But I do not want to be guided by benchmarks per se, unless they are
latency-sensitive. And one of the reasons for the drastic reduction was
that there was actually a real deadlock situation with the old limits,
although we solved that one twice - first by reducing the limits
drastically, and then by making them be relative to the non-highmem memory
(rather than all of it).
So in effect, we actually reduced the limits more than originally
intended, although that particular effect should be noticeable mainly just
on 32-bit x86.
I'm certainly open to tuning. As long as "tuning" doesn't involve
something insane like dbench numbers.
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-08 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20090107154517.GA5565@duck.suse.cz>
2009-01-07 16:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-07 16:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-07 20:51 ` David Miller
2009-01-08 11:02 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-08 16:24 ` David Miller
2009-01-08 16:48 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-01-08 16:55 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-08 17:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-08 19:57 ` Jan Kara
2009-01-08 20:01 ` David Miller
2009-01-09 18:02 ` Jan Kara
2009-01-09 19:00 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-09 19:07 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-09 22:31 ` david
2009-01-09 21:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-14 3:29 ` Nick Piggin
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.0901080842180.3283@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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