[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] count for buffer IO in page_launder()

To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] count for buffer IO in page_launder()
From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:10:20 +0000
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102270353020.6519-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>; from marcelo@conectiva.com.br on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:09:09AM -0300
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102270353020.6519-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:09:09AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> page_launder() is not counting direct ll_rw_block() IO correctly in the
> flushed pages counter. 

Having not seen any follow to this, it's worth asking: what is the
expected consequence of _not_ including this?  Have you done any
performance testing on it?

--Stephen
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] count for buffer IO in page_launder()
  - From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>

Prev by Date: Linux/mips64 on 64 node, 128p, 64G machine
Next by Date: MM docs...
Prev by thread: Linux/mips64 on 64 node, 128p, 64G machine
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] count for buffer IO in page_launder()
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread