From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id
	p7INt9gH233767 for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:55:10 -0500
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 10F3FF29A1
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[140.211.169.13]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id
	1uy3vcxczzPJ7iPI for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>;
	Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:54:28 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] mm: vmscan: Throttle reclaim if encountering too
	many dirty pages under writeback
Message-Id: <20110818165428.4f01a1b9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1312973240-32576-7-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
References: <1312973240-32576-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
	<1312973240-32576-7-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, XFS <xfs@oss.sgi.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:47:19 +0100
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> The percentage that must be in writeback depends on the priority. At
> default priority, all of them must be dirty. At DEF_PRIORITY-1, 50%
> of them must be, DEF_PRIORITY-2, 25% etc. i.e. as pressure increases
> the greater the likelihood the process will get throttled to allow
> the flusher threads to make some progress.

It'd be nice if the code comment were to capture this piece of implicit
arithmetic.  After all, it's a magic number and magic numbers should
stick out like sore thumbs.

And.. how do we know that the chosen magic numbers were optimal?

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs