From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:25:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:24:55 -0400 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org ([131.211.28.48]:42758 "EHLO humbolt.nl.linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:24:40 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Rik van Riel , Jan Harkes Subject: Re: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 14:31:32 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20010906122459Z16031-32383+3771@humbolt.nl.linux.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On September 6, 2001 01:52 pm, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Jan Harkes wrote: > > > To get back on the thread I jumped into, I totally agree with Linus > > that writeout should be as soon as possible. > > Nice way to destroy read performance. Blindly delaying all the writes in the name of better read performance isn't the right idea either. Perhaps we should have a good think about some sensible mechanism for balancing reads against writes. > As DaveM noted so > nicely in his reverse mapping patch (at the end of the > 2.3 series), dirty pages get moved to the laundry list > and the washing machine will deal with them when we have > a full load. > > Lets face it, spinning the washing machine is expensive > and running less than a full load makes things inefficient ;) That makes a good sound bite but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's not a washing machine ;-) -- Daniel