Re: forcing write-back from FS - again

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <Artem.Bityutskiy@...>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 4:55 pm

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:19:41 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com> wrote:


Yeah, I was just thinking that as I read this ;)
 

We could just skip locked pages altogether in writeback.  Perhaps in
WB_SYNC_NONE mode, or perhaps add a new flag in writeback_control to select
this behaviour.

It _should_ be the case that the number of locked-and-dirty pages which
writeback encounters is very small, so skipping locked pages during
writeback-for-memory-flushing won't have any significant effect.  The first
step should be to add a new /proc/vmstat field to count these pages and
then do broad testing (especially on blocksize<pagesize filesystems) to
confirm the theory.

We'll still need to synchronously lock the page in
writeback-for-data-integrity mode though.

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
forcing write-back from FS - again, Artem Bityutskiy, (Sun Oct 21, 4:19 pm)
Re: forcing write-back from FS - again, Andrew Morton, (Sun Oct 21, 4:55 pm)
Re: forcing write-back from FS - again, Artem Bityutskiy, (Mon Oct 22, 4:52 am)
Re: forcing write-back from FS - again, Andrew Morton, (Mon Oct 22, 5:05 am)
Re: forcing write-back from FS - again, Artem Bityutskiy, (Mon Oct 22, 5:38 am)
Re: forcing write-back from FS - again, Andrew Morton, (Mon Oct 22, 5:55 am)
Re: forcing write-back from FS - again, Artem Bityutskiy, (Mon Oct 22, 6:04 am)