From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755369Ab0KFKpu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 6 Nov 2010 06:45:50 -0400
Received: from bld-mail14.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.99]:40176 "EHLO
	mail.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754615Ab0KFKps (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 6 Nov 2010 06:45:48 -0400
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:42:11 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
        "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] [RFC] soft and dynamic dirty throttling limits
Message-ID: <20101106104211.GL13830@dastard>
References: <20100912154945.758129106@intel.com>
 <20101012141716.GA26702@infradead.org>
 <20101013030733.GV4681@dastard>
 <20101013082611.GA6733@localhost>
 <20101013092627.GY4681@dastard>
 <20101101062446.GK2715@dastard>
 <20101104034119.GA18910@localhost>
 <20101104131228.GA22718@lst.de>
 <20101105145639.GA6300@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101105145639.GA6300@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 10:56:39PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:12:28PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:41:19AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > I'm feeling relatively good about the first 14 patches to do IO-less
> > > balance_dirty_pages() and larger writeback chunk size. I'll repost
> > > them separately as v2 after returning to Shanghai.
> > 
> > Going for as small as possible patchsets is a pretty good idea.  Just
> > getting the I/O less balance_dirty_pages on it's own would be a really
> > good start, as that's one of the really criticial pieces of
> > infrastructure that a lot of people are waiting for.  Getting it into
> > linux-mm/linux-next ASAP so that it gets a lot of testing would be
> > highly useful.
> 
> OK, I'll do a smaller IO-less balance_dirty_pages() patchset (it's
> good to know which part is the most relevant one, which is not always
> obvious by my limited field experiences), which will further reduce
> the possible risk of unexpected regressions.

Which is good given the recent history of writeback mods. :/

> Currently the -mm tree includes Greg's patchset "memcg: per cgroup
> dirty page accounting". I'm going to rebase my patches onto it,
> however I'd like to first make sure if Greg's patches are going to be
> pushed in the next merge window. I personally have no problem with
> that.  Andrew?

Well, I'd prefer that you provide a git tree that I can just pull
into my current working branch to test. Having to pull in a thousand
other changes to test your writeback changes makes it much harder
for me as I'd have to establish a new stable performance/behavioural
baseline before starting to analyse your series. If it's based on
mainline then I've already got that baseline....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com