From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] block: add bdi flag to indicate risk of io queue
 underrun
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:22:48 +0200
Message-ID: <1315318968.14232.6.camel@twins>
References: <20110904015305.367445271@intel.com>
	 <20110904020916.070059502@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:33447 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752957Ab1IFOX0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 6 Sep 2011 10:23:26 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20110904020916.070059502@intel.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 09:53 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c      2011-08-31 14:40:58.000000000 +0800
> @@ -1067,6 +1067,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
>                                      nr_dirty, bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty,
>                                      start_time);
>  
> +               if (unlikely(!dirty_exceeded && bdi_async_underrun(bdi)))
> +                       break;
> +
>                 dirty_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit;
>                 pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh,
>                                                background_thresh, nr_dirty,

So dirty_exceeded looks like:


1109                 dirty_exceeded = (bdi_dirty > bdi_thresh) ||
1110                                   (nr_dirty > dirty_thresh);

Would it make sense to write it as:

	if (nr_dirty > dirty_thresh || 
	    (nr_dirty > freerun && bdi_dirty > bdi_thresh))
		dirty_exceeded = 1;

So that we don't actually throttle bdi thingies when we're still in the
freerun area?