From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:35:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:35:00 -0400 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:19568 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 31 May 2002 16:34:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:34:54 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Christoph Hellwig , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.19pre8aa3 Message-ID: <20020531203454.GQ1172@dualathlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20020515212733.GA1025@dualathlon.random> <20020516202626.A13795@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:26:26PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:27:33PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > o minor bdflush tuning difference to avoid char-writer in bonnie > > to stall and to slowdown too much (can make a difference in real > > life) > > ... > > > Only in 2.4.19pre8aa3: 00_bdflush-tuning-1 > > > > Put the mid watermark at 50% (near the high watermark so we don't stall > > too much). > > As the 2.4.19-pre mainline got your buffer throtteling changes I guess it > has the same issues? Do you think it's worth to submit that patch to Marcelo > even that late in the release cycle? it is not very important, but of course it could go in too. > > > Only in 2.4.19pre8aa2: 05_vm_10_read_write_tweaks-1 > > Only in 2.4.19pre8aa3: 05_vm_10_read_write_tweaks-2 > > > > Avoid backing out the flush_page_to_ram in this vm patch, > > the one on the pagecache is still needed before the memcpy > > on the pagecache during the early cow (would be cleaner > > to move it up, if Hugh wants to clean it up that's welcome, > > it will be an orthogonal patch, so far I just avoid to > > change that area in my changes, not high prio to clean it up > > as DaveM side it's more high prio to conver the users of > > flush_page_to_ram API to flush_dcache_page/icache new API during 2.5). > > It seems to me you ignore the comments akpm put in the split patches you > merged :) Not only the comment to this change is superflous now, but also updated :) > I'd really like to get an answer to the remaining part of it as Andrew's > comment about that part beeing buggy makes a lot of sense to me.. well, as Andrew said it's a microoptimization, but it's not buggy. It is used to avoid marking a page referenced twice if somebody reads with an userspace buffer granularity smaller than PAGE_SIZE, the same optimization exists in the read side (there it is a bit more of a microoptimization because the writer never activates pages but the readers activates pages without such check). Andrea