From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:52:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:52:09 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:21516 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:51:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:51:49 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: John Stoffel Cc: Roger Larsson , Daniel Phillips , Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: 2.4.6-pre2, pre3 VM Behavior In-Reply-To: <15145.8435.312548.682190@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote: > That could be handled by a metric which says if the disk is spun down, > wait until there is more memory pressure before writing. But if the > disk is spinning, we don't care, you should start writing out buffers > at some low rate to keep the pressure from rising too rapidly. > > The idea of buffers is more to keep from overloading the disk > subsystem with IO, not to stop IO from happening at all. And to keep > it from going from no IO to full out stalling the system IO. It > should be a nice line as VM pressure goes up, buffer flushing IO rate > goes up as well. There's another issue. If dirty data is written out in small bunches, that means we have to write out the dirty data more often. This in turn means extra disk seeks, which can horribly interfere with disk reads. regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/