[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] bump up nr_to_write in xfs_vm_writepage

To: Olaf Weber <olaf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bump up nr_to_write in xfs_vm_writepage
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:46:01 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, "MASON, CHRISTOPHER" <CHRIS.MASON@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs mailing list <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <bzy8wj0bu72.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4A4D26C5.9070606@xxxxxxxxxx> <bzyd48cc14d.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090707101946.GB1934@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <bzy8wj0bu72.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:37:05PM +0200, Olaf Weber wrote:
> > In theory it should.  But given the amazing feedback of the VM people
> > on this I'd rather make sure we do get the full HW bandwith on large
> > arrays instead of sucking badly and not just wait forever.
> So how do you feel about making the fudge factor tunable?  I don't
> have a good sense myself of what the value should be, whether the
> hard-coded 4 is good enough in general.

A tunable means exposing an ABI, which I'd rather not do for a hack like
this.  If you don't like the number feel free to experiment around with
it, SGI should have enough large systems that can be used to test this

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>