On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 07:55:43PM +0800, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 21:13 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > Thinking twice about it, I find that the different requirements for > > interval flash/external microSD can also be solved by this scheme. > > > > Introduce a per-bdi dirty_background_time (and optionally dirty_time) > > as the counterpart of (and works in parallel to) global dirty[_background]_ratio, > > however with unit "milliseconds worth of data". > > > > The per-bdi dirty_background_time will be set low for external microSD > > and high for internal flash. Then you get timely writeouts for microSD > > and reasonably delayed writes for internal flash (controllable by the > > global dirty_expire_centisecs). > > > > The dirty_background_time will actually work more reliable than > > dirty_expire_centisecs because it will checked immediately after the > > application dirties more pages. And the dirty_time could provide > > strong data integrity guarantee -- much stronger than > > dirty_expire_centisecs -- if used. > > > > Does that sound reasonable? > > Yes, this would probably work. But note, we do not have this problem > anymore, I was just talking about the past experience, so I cannot > validate any possible patch. OK, thanks for the information. What do you mean by "not have this problem any more"? Did you worked around it in other ways, such as sync mount (which seems rather inefficient though)? Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>