[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC][DATA] re "ongoing vm suckage"
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ben LaHaise wrote:
> See, after applying this patch, it no longer deadlocks on io. The
> jerky interactive performance still exists,
Would something like this help ?
(yes, there's a small SMP race, but since the system survives
the starvation bug today that isn't critical)
--- ./ll_rw_blk.c.batch Sat Aug 4 00:30:55 2001
+++ ./ll_rw_blk.c Sat Aug 4 00:33:48 2001
@@ -1031,15 +1031,19 @@
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
struct buffer_head *bh = bhs[i];
+ static int queued_sector_waiters;
/*
* don't lock any more buffers if we are above the high
* water mark. instead start I/O on the queued stuff.
*/
- if (atomic_read(&queued_sectors) >= high_queued_sectors) {
+ if (atomic_read(&queued_sectors) >= high_queued_sectors
+ || queued_sector_waiters) {
run_task_queue(&tq_disk);
+ queued_sector_waiters = 1;
wait_event(blk_buffers_wait,
atomic_read(&queued_sectors) < low_queued_sectors);
+ queued_sector_waiters = 0;
}
/* Only one thread can actually submit the I/O. */
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)
--
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-mm.org/