* Michael Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It clearly should not consider 'itself' as IO activity. This
> > suggests some bug in the 'detect activity' mechanism, agreed? I'm
> > wondering whether you are seeing the same problem, or is all
> > swap-prefetch IO on your system continuous until it's done [or some
> > other IO comes inbetween]?
>
> The only "problem" I can see with this idea is in the potential case
> that it takes up all the IO activity, and so there is never enough IO
> activity from other progams to trigger the wait mechanism because they
> don't get a chance to run.
i dont understand what you mean. Any 'use only idle IO capacity'
mechanism should immediately cease to be active the moment any other app
tries to do IO - whether the IO subsystem is saturated or not.
> That said, I don't think there are any issues with the code
> compensating for its own activity in the "detect activity" mechanism
> -- assuming there wasn't a major impact in e.g. maintainability or
> something.
>
> As for the burstyness... considering the "no negative impact" stance,
> I can understand that. But it seems inefficient, at best...
well, it's a plain old bug (a not too serious one) in my book, i'm
surprised that we are now at mail #7 about it :-) I reported it, and i
guess Con will fix it eventually. There's really no need to deny that it
exists or to try to talk it out of existence. Sheesh! :-)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
