From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:39:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:39:29 -0400 Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:21632 "EHLO vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:39:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:39:04 -0600 Message-Id: <200106200439.f5K4d4501462@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Mike Galbraith , Rik van Riel , Pavel Machek , John Stoffel , Roger Larsson , , Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: [RFC] Early flush (was: spindown) In-Reply-To: <01062003503300.00439@starship> In-Reply-To: <01061816220503.11745@starship> <01062003503300.00439@starship> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Daniel Phillips writes: > I never realized how much I didn't like the good old 5 second delay > between saving an edit and actually getting it written to disk until > it went away. Now the question is, did I lose any performance in > doing that. What I wrote in the previous email turned out to be > pretty accurate, so I'll just quote it Starting I/O immediately if there is no load sounds nice. However, what about the other case, when the disc is already spun down (and hence there's no I/O load either)? I want the system to avoid doing writes while the disc is spun down. I'm quite happy for the system to accumulate dirtied pages/buffers, reclaiming clean pages as needed, until it absolutely has to start writing out (or I call sync(2)). Right now I hack that by setting bdflush parameters to 5 minutes. But that's not ideal either. Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca