From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/45] writeback: introduce wait queue for balance_dirty_pages() Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:36:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20091008083609.GA9228@kernel.dk> References: <20091007073818.318088777@intel.com> <20091007074903.422089703@intel.com> <20091008100159.fb6770cf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091008015822.GB14224@localhost> <1254989316.26976.260.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Wu Fengguang , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , Theodore Tso , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Chris Mason , "Li, Shaohua" , Myklebust Trond , Jan Kara , Nick Piggin , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , LKML To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1254989316.26976.260.camel@twins> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 08 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:58 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > How this runqueue->nr_iowait is handled now ? > > > > Good question. io_schedule() has an old comment for throttling IO wait: > > > > * But don't do that if it is a deliberate, throttling IO wait (this task > > * has set its backing_dev_info: the queue against which it should throttle) > > */ > > void __sched io_schedule(void) > > > > So it looks both Jens' and this patch behaves right in ignoring the > > iowait accounting for balance_dirty_pages() :) > > Well it is a change in behaviour, and I think IOWAIT makes sense when > we're blocked due to io throttle.. > > Hmm? Yep agree, if we're deliberately waiting on IO, it should count as iowait time. -- Jens Axboe