Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: stop balance_dirty_pages doing too much work

Al Boldi
2009-06-26T11:36:54Z

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25 2009, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > The test case is random mmap writes to files that have been laid out
> > > sequentially. So it's all seeks. The target drive is an SSD disk
> > > though, so it doesn't matter a whole lot (it's a good SSD).
> >
> > Oh, SSD. What numbers do you get for normal disks?
>
> I haven't run this particular test on rotating storage. The type of
> drive should not matter a lot, I'm mostly interested in comparing
> vanilla and the writeback patches on identical workloads and storage.

I think drive type matters a lot. Access strategy on drives with high seek
delays differs from those with no seek delays. So it would probably be of
interest to see this test run on rotating storage, unless the writeback
patches are only meant for SSD?

Thanks!

--
Al