From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Cc: john@stoffel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Change in default vm_dirty_ratio
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:33:15 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070619.153315.118964582.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706191201130.3593@woody.linux-foundation.org>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't the vm_dirty_ratio be based on the speed of the device, and
> > not the size of memory?
>
> Yes. It should depend on:
> - speed of the device(s) in question
> - seekiness of the workload
> - wishes of the user as per the latency of other operations.
>
> However, nobody has ever found the required algorithm.
>
> So "at most 10% of memory dirty" is a simple (and fairly _good_)
> heuristic. Nobody has actually ever ended up complaining about the change
> from 40% -> 10%, and as far as I know this was the first report (and it's
> not so much because the change was bad, but because it showed up on a
> benchmark - and I don't think that actually says anythign about anything
> else then the behaviour of the benchmark itself)
I complained very early on that it makes my workstation basically just
hang doing disk writes when I do big git tree operations on my sparc64
workstation.
Restoring the old values makes that go away.
It's an arbitrary number because the correct setting is dependant
upon what you're doing and how fast your disks are.
So I really think the "only benchmarks like the old settings"
argument doesn't really apply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-19 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-18 21:14 Tim Chen
2007-06-18 23:47 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-19 0:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-19 0:09 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-06-19 18:41 ` John Stoffel
2007-06-19 19:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-19 19:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-19 22:33 ` David Miller [this message]
2007-06-19 19:57 ` Andi Kleen
2007-06-20 4:24 ` Dave Jones
2007-06-20 4:44 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-20 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-20 8:58 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-20 9:14 ` Jens Axboe
2007-06-20 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-20 9:20 ` Jens Axboe
2007-06-20 9:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-21 22:53 ` Matt Mackall
2007-06-21 23:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-23 18:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-24 16:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-25 0:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-20 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-21 16:54 ` Mark Lord
2007-06-21 16:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-20 17:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-20 18:12 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-06-20 18:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-21 12:37 ` Nadia Derbey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070619.153315.118964582.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=john@stoffel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®