From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] writeback: per task dirty rate limit Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:55:39 +0800 Message-ID: <20110811005539.GA4413@localhost> References: <20110806084447.388624428@intel.com> <20110806094527.002914580@intel.com> <20110809174621.GF6482@redhat.com> <20110810032954.GC24486@localhost> <20110810181854.GD3396@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Jan Kara , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Greg Thelen , Minchan Kim , Andrea Righi , linux-mm , LKML To: Vivek Goyal Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110810181854.GD3396@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 02:18:54AM +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:29:54AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > [..] > > > > - ratelimit = ratelimit_pages; > > > > - if (mapping->backing_dev_info->dirty_exceeded) > > > > + ratelimit = current->nr_dirtied_pause; > > > > + if (bdi->dirty_exceeded) > > > > ratelimit = 8; > > > > > > Should we make sure that ratelimit is more than 8? It could be that > > > ratelimit is 1 and we set it higher (just reverse of what we wanted?) > > > > Good catch! I actually just fixed it in that direction :) > > > > if (bdi->dirty_exceeded) > > - ratelimit = 8; > > + ratelimit = min(ratelimit, 32 >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 10)); > > With page size 64K, will above lead to retelimit 0? Is that what you want. > I wouldn't think so. Yeah, it looks a bit weird.. however ratelimit=0 would behave the same with ratelimit=1 because balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() is always called with (nr_pages_dirtied >= 1). Thanks, Fengguang -- 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org