From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:49:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:48:52 -0400 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org ([131.211.28.48]:1298 "EHLO humbolt.nl.linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:48:43 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: spindown [was Re: 2.4.6-pre2, pre3 VM Behavior] Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:44:57 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: Pavel Machek , John Stoffel , Roger Larsson , Linux-Kernel In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0106162344570L.00879@starship> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 16 June 2001 23:06, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > As a side note, the good old multisecond delay before bdflush kicks in > > doesn't really make a lot of sense - when bandwidth is available the > > filesystem-initiated writeouts should happen right away. > > ... thus spinning up the disk ? Nope, the disk is already spinning, some other writeouts just finished. > How about just making sure we write out a bigger bunch > of dirty pages whenever one buffer gets too old ? It's simpler than that. It's basically just: disk traffic low? good, write out all the dirty buffers. Not quite as crude as that, but nearly. > Does the patch below do anything good for your laptop? ;) I'll wait for the next one ;-) -- Daniel