Hi 2. On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 07:07:15PM +0000, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It is (b) that I am aiming for in this patch. At least (a) was not > happening in the cloudflare experiments. Are you suggesting having a > dedicated high priority wq would solve both (a) and (b)? > [...] > > We can't argue what's the effect of periodic only flushing so this > > newly introduced factor would inherit that too. I find it superfluous. > > > Sorry I didn't get your point. What is superfluous? Let me retell my understanding. The current implementation flushes based on cumulated error and time. Your patch proposes conditioning the former with another time-based flushing, whose duration can be up to 2 times longer than the existing periodic flush. Assuming the periodic flush is working, the reader won't see data older than 2 seconds, so the additional sync-flush after (possible) 4 seconds seems superfluous. (In the case of periodic flush being stuck, I thought the factor 2=4s/2s was superfluous, another magic parameter.) I'm comparing here your proposal vs no synchronous flushing in workingset_refault(). > Do you have any strong concerns with the currect patch? Does that clarify? (I agree with your initial thesis this can be iterated before it evolves to everyone's satisfaction.) Michal
