From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] writeback: skip balance_dirty_pages() for in-memory fs Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:07:31 +0800 Message-ID: <20110611130730.GA23176@localhost> References: <20110607213236.634026193@intel.com> <20110607213854.764050631@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , Hugh Dickins , Rik van Riel , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , LKML To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110607213854.764050631@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > @@ -495,6 +490,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a > bool dirty_exceeded = false; > struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info; > > + if (!bdi_cap_account_dirty(bdi)) > + return; > + > for (;;) { > struct writeback_control wbc = { > .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_NONE, > Update: it's slightly better to do early return in balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(). This way the tmpfs dirties won't unnecessarily disturb the per-cpu bdp_ratelimits counters. Thanks, Fengguang --- --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2011-06-11 17:52:59.000000000 +0800 +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2011-06-11 17:53:53.000000000 +0800 @@ -1098,9 +1098,6 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info; unsigned long start_time = jiffies; - if (!bdi_cap_account_dirty(bdi)) - return; - for (;;) { nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) + global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS); @@ -1237,9 +1234,13 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, bdp void balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(struct address_space *mapping, unsigned long nr_pages_dirtied) { + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info; unsigned long ratelimit; unsigned long *p; + if (!bdi_cap_account_dirty(bdi)) + return; + ratelimit = ratelimit_pages; if (mapping->backing_dev_info->dirty_exceeded) ratelimit = 8;