On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 09:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 16:08 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > The vm_dirty_ratio thing is a global value, and I think we need that
> > > regardless (for the independent issue of
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 16:08 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > The vm_dirty_ratio thing is a global value, and I think we need that
> > regardless (for the independent issue of memory deadlocks etc), but if we
> > *additionally* had a per-device
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 16:08 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps we want to throw some sliding window algorithms at it. We can
> > bound requests and total I/O and if requests get retired too slowly we
> > can shrink the windows. Alternately, w
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> Perhaps we want to throw some sliding window algorithms at it. We can
> bound requests and total I/O and if requests get retired too slowly we
> can shrink the windows. Alternately, we can grow the window if we're
> retiring things within our desired
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:20:59AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Perhaps our queues are too long - if the VFS _does_ back off, it'll take
> > > >
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 12:54 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > What do we actually want the kernel to *do*? Stated in terms of "when the
> > dirty memory state is A, do B" and "when userspace does C, the kernel should
> > do D".
>
> When we have dirty pages awaiting write-out,
Andrew Morton wrote:
What do we actually want the kernel to *do*? Stated in terms of "when the
dirty memory state is A, do B" and "when userspace does C, the kernel should
do D".
When we have dirty pages awaiting write-out,
and the write-out device is completely idle,
then we should be writin
Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:47:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Frankly, I find it very depressing that the kernel defaults matter. These
> things are trivially tunable and you'd think that after all these years,
> distro initscripts would be establishing the settings, bas
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> maybe that needs to be fixed? If you stopped dirtying after the initial
> bump.. is there a reason for the kernel to dump all that data to the
> disk in such a way that it disturbs interactive users?
No. I would argue that the kernel should try t
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:17 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Building on the per BDI patches, how about integrating feedback from the
> > full-ness of device queues. That is, when we are happily doing IO and we
> > cannot possibly saturate the ac
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Building on the per BDI patches, how about integrating feedback from the
> full-ness of device queues. That is, when we are happily doing IO and we
> cannot possibly saturate the active devices (as measured by their queue
> never reaching 75%?) then
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:20 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Perhaps our queues are too long - if the VFS _does_ back off, it'll take
> > > > some ti
On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Perhaps our queues are too long - if the VFS _does_ back off, it'll take
> > > some time for that to have an effect.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the fact th
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 01:58 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:35:36 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 21:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, this is all arse-about. What is the design? What algorithms
> > > do we need to i
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Perhaps our queues are too long - if the VFS _does_ back off, it'll take
> > some time for that to have an effect.
> >
> > Perhaps the fact that the queue size knows nothing about the _size_ of the
On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Perhaps our queues are too long - if the VFS _does_ back off, it'll take
> some time for that to have an effect.
>
> Perhaps the fact that the queue size knows nothing about the _size_ of the
> requests in the queue is a problem.
It's complicated, the s
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:35:36 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 21:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Anyway, this is all arse-about. What is the design? What algorithms
> > do we need to implement to do this successfully? Answer me that, then
> > we can
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 21:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Anyway, this is all arse-about. What is the design? What algorithms
> do we need to implement to do this successfully? Answer me that, then
> we can decide upon these implementation details.
Building on the per BDI patches, how about in
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:24:34 -0400 Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:47:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I find it very depressing that the kernel defaults matter. These
> > things are trivially tunable and you'd think that after all these years,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:47:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Frankly, I find it very depressing that the kernel defaults matter. These
> things are trivially tunable and you'd think that after all these years,
> distro initscripts would be establishing the settings, based upon expected
>
From: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't the vm_dirty_ratio be based on the speed of the device, and
> > not the size of memory?
>
> Yes. It should depend on:
> - speed of the device(s
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Yes. It should depend on:
> - speed of the device(s) in question
Btw, this one can be quite a big deal. Try connecting an iPod and syncing
8GB of data to it. Oops.
So yes, it would be nice to have some per-device logic too. Tested patches
would
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
>
> Shouldn't the vm_dirty_ratio be based on the speed of the device, and
> not the size of memory?
Yes. It should depend on:
- speed of the device(s) in question
- seekiness of the workload
- wishes of the user as per the latency of other operations.
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> It seems too large. Memory sizes are going up faster than disk throughput
> and it seems wrong to keep vast amounts of dirty data floating about in
> memory like this. It can cause long stalls while the system writes back
> huge amounts of data and i
> "Andrew" == Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:14:30 -0700
Andrew> Tim Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IOZone write drops by about 60% when test file size is 50 percent of
>> memory. Rand-write drops by 90%.
Andrew> heh.
Andrew> (Or is that an in
> Is it good to keep tons of dirty stuff around? Sure. It allows overwriting
> (and thus avoiding doing the write in the first place), but it also allows
> for a more aggressive IO scheduling, in that you have more writes that you
> can schedule.
it also allows for an elevator that can merge
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:14:30 -0700
> Tim Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew,
> >
> > The default vm_dirty_ratio changed from 40 to 10
> > for the 2.6.22-rc kernels in this patch:
Yup.
> > IOZone write drops by about 60% when test file siz
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:14:30 -0700
Tim Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> The default vm_dirty_ratio changed from 40 to 10
> for the 2.6.22-rc kernels in this patch:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?
> p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=07db59bd6b0f279c31044cba6787344
Andrew,
The default vm_dirty_ratio changed from 40 to 10
for the 2.6.22-rc kernels in this patch:
http://git.kernel.org/?
p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=07db59bd6b0f279c31044cba6787344f63be87ea;hp=de46c33745f5e2ad594c72f2cf5f490861b16ce1
IOZone write drops by about 60%
29 matches
Mail list logo
