On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:41:09AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Suppose we want to grant longer expiration window for temp files, > > adding a new list named s_dirty_tmpfile would be a handy solution. > > How would the kernel know that a file is a tmp file?
No idea - but it makes a good example ;-) But for those making different filesystems for /tmp, /var, /data etc, per-superblock expiration parameters may help. > > So the question is: should we need more than 3 QoS classes? > > [just a random idea; i have not worked out all the implications] > > Would it be possible to derive a writeback apriority from the ionice > level of the process originating the IO? e.g. we have long standing > problems that background jobs even when niced and can cause > significant slow downs to foreground processes by starving IO > and pushing out pages. ionice was supposed to help with that > but in practice it does not seem to have helped too much and I suspect > it needs more prioritization higher up the VM food chain. Adding > such priorities to writeback would seem like a step in the right > direction, although it would of course not solve the problem > completely. Good idea. Michael may well be considering similar interfaces :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
