From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496926B0071 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 06:31:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: [PATCH] bdi: use deferable timer for sync_supers task From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com In-Reply-To: References: <20101008083514.GA12402@ywang-moblin2.bj.intel.com> <20101008092520.GB5426@lst.de> <1286532586.2095.55.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:28:07 +0300 Message-ID: <1286533687.2095.58.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Wu, Xia" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Yong Wang , Jens Axboe , "Wu, Fengguang" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 18:27 +0800, Wu, Xia wrote: > > However, when the next wake-up interrupt happens is not defined. It can > > happen 1ms after, or 1 minute after, or 1 hour after. What Christoph > > says is that there should be some guarantee that sb writeout starts, > > say, within 5 to 10 seconds interval. Deferrable timers do not guarantee > > this. But take a look at the range hrtimers - they do exactly this. > > If the system is in sleep state, is there any data which should be written? May be yes, may be no. > Must > sb writeout start even there isn't any data? No. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (D?N?N?N?D 1/4 D?D,N?N?N?DoD,D1) -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org