On Fri 21-05-10 10:11:59, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
quoted text
> > > So, I'd prefer to restore the default rather than both Redhat and SUSE apply exactly
> > > same distro specific patch. because we can easily imazine other users will face the same
> > > issue in the future.
> > 
> > On desktop systems the low dirty limits help maintain interactive feel. 
> > Users expect applications that are saving data to be slow. They do not 
> > like it when every application in the system randomly comes to a halt 
> > because of one program stuffing data up to the dirty limit.
> 
> really?
> Do you mean our per-task dirty limit wouldn't works?
> 
> If so, I think we need fix it. IOW sane per-task dirty limitation seems
> independent issue from per-system dirty limit.
  Well, I don't know about any per-task dirty limits. What function
implements them? Any application that dirties a single page can be caught
and forced to call balance_dirty_pages() and do writeback.
  But generally what we observe on a desktop with lots of dirty memory is
that application needs to allocate memory (either private one or for page
cache) and that triggers direct reclaim so the allocation takes a long
time to finish and thus the application is sluggish...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/