From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: miquels@cistron.nl, axboe@suse.de, linux-lvm@sistina.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, thornber@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:40:41 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40356599.3080001@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040219172656.77c887cf.akpm@osdl.org>
Andrew Morton wrote:
>Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Even with this patch, it might still be a good idea to allow
>>pdflush to disregard the limits...
>>
>
>Has it been confirmed that pdflush is blocking in get_request_wait()? I
>guess that can happen very occasionally because we don't bother with any
>locking around there but if it's happening a lot then something is bust.
>
>
Miquel's analysis is pretty plausible, but I'm not sure if
he's confirmed it or not, Miquel? Even if it isn't happening
a lot, and something isn't bust it might be a good idea to
do this.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-20 1:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20040216131609.GA21974@cistron.nl>
[not found] ` <20040216133047.GA9330@suse.de>
[not found] ` <20040217145716.GE30438@traveler.cistron.net>
2004-02-18 23:52 ` IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 1:24 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 1:52 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 2:01 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 1:26 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 2:11 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 2:26 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 10:15 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 10:19 ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19 20:59 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 22:52 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 23:53 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-20 0:15 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-20 1:12 ` [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-20 1:26 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20 1:40 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2004-02-20 2:32 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20 14:40 ` [PATCH] bdi_congestion_funp (was: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests)) Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-20 14:57 ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-20 14:59 ` Joe Thornber
2004-02-20 15:00 ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-22 14:02 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-22 19:55 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20 1:45 ` [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 2:51 ` IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 10:21 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=40356599.3080001@cyberone.com.au \
--to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-lvm@sistina.com \
--cc=miquels@cistron.nl \
--cc=thornber@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox