From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:38:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:37:56 -0400 Received: from [63.209.4.196] ([63.209.4.196]:56847 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:37:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:35:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Rik van Riel cc: Daniel Phillips , Ben LaHaise , , Subject: Re: [RFC][DATA] re "ongoing vm suckage" In-Reply-To: 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 Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Please just remove the code instead. I don't think it buys you anything. > > IIRC you applied the patch introducing that logic because it > gave a 25% performance increase under some write intensive > loads (or something like that). That's the batching code, which is somewhat intertwined with the same code. The batching code is a separate issue: when we free the requests, we don't actually make them available as they get free'd (because then the waiters will trickle out new requests one at a time and cannot do any merging etc). Also, the throttling code probably _did_ make behaviour nicer back when "sync()" used to use ll_rw_block(). Of course, now most of the IO layer actually uses "submit_bh()" and bypasses this code completely, so only the ones that still use it get hit by the unfairness. What a double whammy ;) Linus