From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fransum.emea.sgi.com (fransum.emea.sgi.com [144.253.208.10]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n67BaXNW142072 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:36:34 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] bump up nr_to_write in xfs_vm_writepage References: <4A4D26C5.9070606@redhat.com> <20090707101946.GB1934@infradead.org> From: Olaf Weber Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:37:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20090707101946.GB1934@infradead.org> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:19:46 -0400") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs mailing list , "MASON, CHRISTOPHER" , linux-mm@kvack.org Christoph Hellwig writes: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:30AM +0200, Olaf Weber wrote: >> If the nr_to_write calculation really yields a value that is too >> small, shouldn't it be fixed elsewhere? > In theory it should. But given the amazing feedback of the VM people > on this I'd rather make sure we do get the full HW bandwith on large > arrays instead of sucking badly and not just wait forever. So how do you feel about making the fudge factor tunable? I don't have a good sense myself of what the value should be, whether the hard-coded 4 is good enough in general. -- Olaf Weber SGI Phone: +31(0)30-6696752 Veldzigt 2b Fax: +31(0)30-6696799 Technical Lead 3454 PW de Meern Vnet: 955-7151 Storage Software The Netherlands Email: olaf@sgi.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs