Linux-2.4.1-pre11 / ll_rw_b watermark metric?
Quoted 7 lines · Dieter Nützel
I have pre11 running with Andrea's suggested fix.
high_queued_sectors = total_ram / 3; low_queued_sectors = high_queued_sectors / 2; if (low_queued_sectors < 0) low_queued_sectors = total_ram / 2;
I have one question: How it can happen that low_queued_sectors is less than zero with this changed logic? (And if it get triggered, low_queued_sectors will be greater than high_queued_sectors - which is not what we want...)
But it is certainly better than 2.4.0-pre8 approach, as with 200MB of memory (exactly 192MB left unused) you can end up with low_queued_sectors == 0... And it does not give you optimal behavior.
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec [email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 9 lines · Petr Vandrovec
Quoted 7 lines · Dieter Nützel
I have pre11 running with Andrea's suggested fix.
high_queued_sectors = total_ram / 3; low_queued_sectors = high_queued_sectors / 2; if (low_queued_sectors < 0) low_queued_sectors = total_ram / 2;
Quoted 4 lines
I have one question: How it can happen that
low_queued_sectorsis less than zero with this changed logic? (And if it get triggered,low_queued_sectorswill be greater thanhigh_queued_sectors- which is not what we want...)
This wasn't my change, but you're right it's wrong.
Quoted 3 lines
But it is certainly better than 2.4.0-pre8 approach, as with 200MB of memory (exactly 192MB left unused) you can end up with
low_queued_sectors== 0... And it does not give you optimal behavior.
Same here, definitely not right either. Dunno how I missed that.
Signature · 6 lines
Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/