From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:01:58 +1100 References: <20070116054743.15358.77287.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20070116054743.15358.77287.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701170901.58757.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: akpm@osdl.org, Paul Menage , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Jackson , Dave Chinner List-ID: > Secondly we modify the dirty limit calculation to be based > on the acctive cpuset. The global dirty limit definitely seems to be a problem in several cases, but my feeling is that the cpuset is the wrong unit to keep track of it. Most likely it should be more fine grained. > If we are in a cpuset then we select only inodes for writeback > that have pages on the nodes of the cpuset. Is there any indication this change helps on smaller systems or is it purely a large system optimization? > B. We add a new counter NR_UNRECLAIMABLE that is subtracted > from the available pages in a node. This allows us to > accurately calculate the dirty ratio even if large portions > of the node have been allocated for huge pages or for > slab pages. That sounds like a useful change by itself. -Andi -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org