On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Any reason why you don't have a lower wake-up limit for the queue?
The watermark diff looked too high (it's 128M in current Linus's tree), but it's
probably a good idea to resurrect it with a max difference of a few full sized
requests
On Thu, Feb 22 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:59:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I'd prefer for this check to be a per-queue one.
>
> I'm running this in my tree since a few weeks, however I never had the courage
> to post it publically because I didn't benchmark
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 07:44:11PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> The global limit on top of the per-queue limit sounds good.
Probably.
> Since you're talking about the "total_ram / 3" hardcoded value... it
> should be /proc tunable IMO. (Andi Kleen already suggested this)
Yes, IIRC Andi also
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> However if you have houndred of different queues doing I/O at the same
> time it may make a difference, but probably with tons of harddisks
> you'll also have tons of ram... In theory we could put a global limit
> on top of the the per-queue one.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:57:00PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> unsane to wait kupdate to submit 10G of ram to a single harddisk before
> unplugging on a 30G machine.
actually kupdate will unplug itself the queue but in theory it can grow the
queue still up to such level after the I/O started
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 06:40:48PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> You want to throttle IO if the amount of on flight data is higher than
> a given percentage of _main memory_.
>
> As far as I can see, your patch avoids each individual queue from being
> bigger than the high watermark (which is
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:59:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I'd prefer for this check to be a per-queue one.
>
> I'm running this in my tree since a few weeks, however I never had the courage
> to post it publically because I didn't benchma
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 22 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > The following piece of code in ll_rw_block() aims to limit the number of
> > > locked buffers by making processes throttle on IO if the number of on
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:59:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'd prefer for this check to be a per-queue one.
I'm running this in my tree since a few weeks, however I never had the courage
to post it publically because I didn't benchmarked it carefully yet and I
prefer to finish another thin
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > The following piece of code in ll_rw_block() aims to limit the number of
> > locked buffers by making processes throttle on IO if the number of on
> > flight requests is bigger than a high watermaker. IO wi
On Thu, Feb 22 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> The following piece of code in ll_rw_block() aims to limit the number of
> locked buffers by making processes throttle on IO if the number of on
> flight requests is bigger than a high watermaker. IO will only start
> again if we're under a low waterma
Hi,
The following piece of code in ll_rw_block() aims to limit the number of
locked buffers by making processes throttle on IO if the number of on
flight requests is bigger than a high watermaker. IO will only start
again if we're under a low watermark.
if (atomic_read(&queued_
12 matches
Mail list logo
