From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752858AbXJVJ2S (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:28:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751482AbXJVJ2J (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:28:09 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:34654 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751364AbXJVJ2I (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:28:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:27:54 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jens Axboe , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority Message-ID: <20071022092753.GA7659@elte.hu> References: <20071015104647.14e60bc5@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20071015114738.6b5a25c7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071015192822.GA2267@kernel.dk> <20071022091057.GB2781@elte.hu> <20071022022319.a5988afe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071022022319.a5988afe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > > but what bothers me even more is the large picture. Linux's > > development is still fundamentally skewed towards bandwidth (which > > goes up with hardware advances anyway), while the focus on latencies > > is very lacking (which users do care about much more and which > > usually does _not_ improve with improved hardware), so i cannot see > > why we shouldnt apply this. Reminds me of the illogical, almost > > superstitious resistence against the relatime patch. (which is not > > in 2.6.24 mind you - killed for good) > > Try `mount -o relatime' and prepare to be surprised ;) i mean this one: http://people.redhat.com/mingo/relatime-patches/improve-relatime.patch this actually makes relatime practical. Ingo