From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] writeback bug fixes and simplifications take 2 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:18:48 +0800 Message-ID: <400449941.28506@ustc.edu.cn> References: <400401292.24795@ustc.edu.cn> <532480950801151033w69411f8dk4d9ab14a2ff07d64@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Rubin Return-path: Received: from smtp.ustc.edu.cn ([202.38.64.16]:35294 "HELO ustc.edu.cn" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754289AbYAPCSx (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:18:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <532480950801151033w69411f8dk4d9ab14a2ff07d64@mail.gmail.com> Message-Id: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:33:01AM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote: > On Jan 15, 2008 4:36 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > Andrew, > > > > This patchset mainly polishes the writeback queuing policies. > > Anyone know which tree is this patched based out of? They are against the latest -mm tree, or 2.6.24-rc6-mm1. > > The main goals are: > > > > (1) small files should not be starved by big dirty files > > (2) sync as fast as possible for not-blocked inodes/pages > > - don't leave them out; no congestion_wait() in between them > > (3) avoid busy iowait for blocked inodes > > - retry them in the next go of s_io(maybe at the next wakeup of pdflush) > > > > Fengguang do you have any specific tests for any of these cases? As I > have posted earlier I am putting together a writeback test suite for > test.kernel.org and if you have one (even if it's an ugly shell > script) that would save me some time. No, I just run tests with cp/dd etc. I analyze the code and debug traces a lot, and know that it works in the situations I can imagine. But dedicated test suites are good in the long term. > Also if you want any of mine let me know. :-) OK, thank you. Fengguang From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] writeback bug fixes and simplifications take 2 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:18:48 +0800 Message-ID: References: <400401292.24795@ustc.edu.cn> <532480950801151033w69411f8dk4d9ab14a2ff07d64@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Rubin Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <532480950801151033w69411f8dk4d9ab14a2ff07d64@mail.gmail.com> Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:33:01AM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote: > On Jan 15, 2008 4:36 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > Andrew, > > > > This patchset mainly polishes the writeback queuing policies. > > Anyone know which tree is this patched based out of? They are against the latest -mm tree, or 2.6.24-rc6-mm1. > > The main goals are: > > > > (1) small files should not be starved by big dirty files > > (2) sync as fast as possible for not-blocked inodes/pages > > - don't leave them out; no congestion_wait() in between them > > (3) avoid busy iowait for blocked inodes > > - retry them in the next go of s_io(maybe at the next wakeup of pdflush) > > > > Fengguang do you have any specific tests for any of these cases? As I > have posted earlier I am putting together a writeback test suite for > test.kernel.org and if you have one (even if it's an ugly shell > script) that would save me some time. No, I just run tests with cp/dd etc. I analyze the code and debug traces a lot, and know that it works in the situations I can imagine. But dedicated test suites are good in the long term. > Also if you want any of mine let me know. :-) OK, thank you. Fengguang