From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
To: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] using writepage to start io
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:18:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01080623182601.01864@starship> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <755760000.997128720@tiny>
In-Reply-To: <755760000.997128720@tiny>
On Monday 06 August 2001 22:12, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Monday, August 06, 2001 09:45:12 PM +0200 Daniel Phillips
>
> <phillips@bonn-fries.net> wrote:
> >> Almost ;-) memory pressure doesn't need to care about how long a
> >> buffer has been dirty, that's kupdate's job. kupdate doesn't care
> >> if the buffer it is writing is a good candidate for freeing, that's
> >> taken care of elsewhere. The two never need to talk (aside from
> >> optimizations).
> >
> > My point is, they should talk, in fact they should be the same
> > function. It's never right for bdflush to submit younger buffers
> > when there are dirty buffers whose flush time has already passed.
>
> Grin, we're talking in circles. My point is that by having two
> threads, bdflush is allowed to skip over older buffers in favor of
> younger ones because somebody else is responsible for writing the
> older ones out.
Yes, and you can't imagine an algorithm that could do that with *one*
thread?
--
Daniel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
To: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] using writepage to start io
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:18:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01080623182601.01864@starship> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <755760000.997128720@tiny>
On Monday 06 August 2001 22:12, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Monday, August 06, 2001 09:45:12 PM +0200 Daniel Phillips
>
> <phillips@bonn-fries.net> wrote:
> >> Almost ;-) memory pressure doesn't need to care about how long a
> >> buffer has been dirty, that's kupdate's job. kupdate doesn't care
> >> if the buffer it is writing is a good candidate for freeing, that's
> >> taken care of elsewhere. The two never need to talk (aside from
> >> optimizations).
> >
> > My point is, they should talk, in fact they should be the same
> > function. It's never right for bdflush to submit younger buffers
> > when there are dirty buffers whose flush time has already passed.
>
> Grin, we're talking in circles. My point is that by having two
> threads, bdflush is allowed to skip over older buffers in favor of
> younger ones because somebody else is responsible for writing the
> older ones out.
Yes, and you can't imagine an algorithm that could do that with *one*
thread?
--
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-08-06 21:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-08-05 18:34 [RFC] using writepage to start io Chris Mason
2001-08-05 18:34 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-05 22:38 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-05 22:38 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-05 23:32 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-05 23:32 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-06 5:39 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-06 5:39 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-06 13:24 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-06 13:24 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-06 16:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-06 16:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-06 16:51 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-06 16:51 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-06 19:45 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-06 19:45 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-06 20:12 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-06 20:12 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-06 21:18 ` Daniel Phillips [this message]
2001-08-06 21:18 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 11:02 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-08-07 11:02 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-08-07 11:39 ` Ed Tomlinson
2001-08-07 11:39 ` Ed Tomlinson
2001-08-07 18:36 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 18:36 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 12:07 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2001-08-07 12:07 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2001-08-07 12:02 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2001-08-07 12:02 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2001-08-07 13:29 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 13:29 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 13:31 ` Alexander Viro
2001-08-07 13:31 ` Alexander Viro
2001-08-07 15:52 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 15:52 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 14:23 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-08-07 14:23 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-08-07 15:51 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-07 15:51 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-08 14:49 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-08-08 14:49 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2001-08-06 15:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2001-08-06 15:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-08-07 15:19 Chris Mason
2001-08-07 15:19 ` Chris Mason
2001-07-28 16:01 Chris Mason
2001-07-28 16:18 ` Alexander Viro
2001-07-28 16:25 ` Chris Mason
2001-07-31 19:07 ` Chris Mason
2001-07-31 19:07 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-01 1:01 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-01 1:01 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-01 2:05 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-01 2:05 ` Chris Mason
2001-08-01 14:57 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-08-01 14:57 ` Daniel Phillips
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=01080623182601.01864@starship \
--to=phillips@bonn-fries.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mason@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.