From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752293Ab1HJDaG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:30:06 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:10324 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751062Ab1HJDaE (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:30:04 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,348,1309762800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="36903939"
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:29:54 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Message-ID: <20110810032954.GC24486@localhost>
References: <20110806084447.388624428@intel.com>
 <20110806094527.002914580@intel.com>
 <20110809174621.GF6482@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110809174621.GF6482@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:46:21AM +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 04:44:51PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> 
> [..]
> >   * balance_dirty_pages() must be called by processes which are generating dirty
> >   * data.  It looks at the number of dirty pages in the machine and will force
> >   * the caller to perform writeback if the system is over `vm_dirty_ratio'.
> > @@ -1008,6 +1005,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> >  	if (clear_dirty_exceeded && bdi->dirty_exceeded)
> >  		bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0;
> >  
> > +	current->nr_dirtied = 0;
> > +	current->nr_dirtied_pause = ratelimit_pages(nr_dirty, dirty_thresh);
> > +
> >  	if (writeback_in_progress(bdi))
> >  		return;
> >  
> > @@ -1034,8 +1034,6 @@ void set_page_dirty_balance(struct page 
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, bdp_ratelimits) = 0;
> > -
> >  /**
> >   * balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr - balance dirty memory state
> >   * @mapping: address_space which was dirtied
> > @@ -1055,30 +1053,17 @@ void balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(
> >  {
> >  	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 = 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));

Thanks,
Fengguang