RE: [PATCH] mm: moving dirty pages balancing to pdfludh entirely

[Ananiev, Leonid I]

I have added proposed by Nikita lines
		if (pdflush_operation(background_writeout, 0))
                writeback_inodes(&wbc);
and tested it with iozone. The throughput is 50-53 MB/sec. It is less
than 74-105 MB/sec results sent earlier.

Leonid

-----Original Message-----
From: Nikita Danilov [mailto:nikita@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:57 PM
To: Ananiev, Leonid I
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: moving dirty pages balancing to pdfludh
entirely

Ananiev, Leonid I writes:
 > Nikita Danilov writes:
 > > suppose you have more than MAX_PDFLUSH_THREADS
 > Do you consider that the drawback of the patch is in that the value
 > MAX_PDFLUSH_THREADS is not well known high or this limit is not
deleted

I am more concerned, that this patch _limits_ maximal possible writeback
concurrency to MAX_PDFLUSH_THREADS.

 > at all? The limit could be deleted after patching because the line 

That sounds a bit too extreme, given that pdflush is used for a lot of
things other than background write-out.

 > +	if (writeback_in_progress(bdi)) {
 > keeps off creating extra pdflush threads.

What about replacing

 		pdflush_operation(background_writeout, 0);

with

 		if (pdflush_operation(background_writeout, 0))
                /*
                 * Fall back to synchronous writeback if all pdflush
                 * threads are busy.
                 */
                writeback_inodes(&wbc);

? This will combine increased concurrency in your target case (single
writer) with some safety net in the case of multiple writers and
multiple devices.

 > 
 > Leonid

Nikita.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/