From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755026Ab1FMWXt (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:23:49 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53496 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754299Ab1FMWXq (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:23:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:23:30 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Wu Fengguang Cc: , Jan Kara , Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] bdi write bandwidth estimation Message-Id: <20110613152330.056e2eba.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20110612151821.601514494@intel.com> References: <20110612151821.601514494@intel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:18:21 +0800 Wu Fengguang wrote: > Do bdi write bandwidth estimation in the flusher thread at 200ms intervals, stdrant: anything which is paced using "seconds" is basically always wrong. The bandwidth of storage systems varies by who-knows-how-many orders of magnitude. If 200ms is correct for one system then it is vastly incorrect for another. A more suitable clock for this estimate would be "per 200 requests", for a block-based BDI. Also of course the bandwidth of a particular BDI varies vastly depending on workload. For the purpose of this work, that's probably a desirable thing.