From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:58:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1290596302.2072.445.camel@laptop> References: <20101117042720.033773013@intel.com> <20101117042850.002299964@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Andrew Morton , Jan Kara , Li Shaohua , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Theodore Ts'o , Chris Mason , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML To: Wu Fengguang Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101117042850.002299964@intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 12:27 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > @@ -555,8 +592,10 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a > pause =3D clamp_val(pause, 1, HZ/10); > =20 > pause: > + bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written); > __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > io_schedule_timeout(pause); > + bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written); > =20 > /* > * The bdi thresh is somehow "soft" limit derived from the So its really a two part bandwidth calculation, the first call is: bdi_get_bandwidth() and the second call is: bdi_update_bandwidth() Would it make sense to actually implement it with two functions instead of overloading the functionality of the one function? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org