RE: [PATCH] bdi: use deferable timer for sync_supers task

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 18:27 +0800, Wu, Xia wrote:
> > However, when the next wake-up interrupt happens is not defined. It can
> > happen 1ms after, or 1 minute after, or 1 hour after. What Christoph
> > says is that there should be some guarantee that sb writeout starts,
> > say, within 5 to 10 seconds interval. Deferrable timers do not guarantee
> > this. But take a look at the range hrtimers - they do exactly this.
> 
> If the system is in sleep state, is there any data which should be written?

May be yes, may be no.

>  Must 
> sb writeout start even there isn't any data? 

No.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (ÐÑÑÑÐ ÐÐÑÑÑÐÐÐ)

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]