Re: [PATCH] 2.2.17pre7 VM enhancement Re: I/O performance on

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> >I applied your balance dirty patch against 2.2.17pre9, plus the protected
> >ramdisk memory patch.  
> 
> Ok good. (btw, does protected-balance fix all your out of memory problems
> with the installer, right?)
The problems were not fix by the protected-balance, but by returning
success on any progress made at do_try_to_free_pages().

> >I also changed the buffer cache dirty percentage check at the end of
> >try_to_free_buffers to use the new balance_dirty_state:
> >
> >+       if(balance_dirty_state(NODEV) >= 0)
> >+               wakeup_bdflush(0);
> >
> >Testing dbench with 48 clients, I got 17MB/s with 2.2.17pre9, and 21MB/sec
> >with 2.2.17pre9 + this patch.
> 		 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I spend an relevat effort to take all the patches separated and ordered,
> so I'd appreciate if you could avoid to mix them.
Alan is going to apply them together anyway, thats why I merged them. 

> About the change you did to the second patch, as far I can see it's the
> strightforward porting of the 20_buf-flushing-5 patch in 2.2.17pre6aa2 to
> 2.2.17pre9.

Yes. That is why I told **YOUR PATCH**.