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 S1753915Ab1HOOLs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:11:48 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:38123 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753562Ab1HOOLq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:11:46 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,374,1309762800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="38574594"
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:11:38 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        "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 3/5] writeback: dirty rate control
Message-ID: <20110815141138.GB23601@localhost>
References: <20110806084447.388624428@intel.com>
 <20110806094526.878435971@intel.com>
 <20110809155046.GD6482@redhat.com>
 <1312906591.1083.43.camel@twins>
 <20110810140002.GA29724@localhost>
 <1312996226.23660.43.camel@twins>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1312996226.23660.43.camel@twins>
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 Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 01:10:26AM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 22:00 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > 
> > > Although I'm not quite sure how he keeps fairness in light of the
> > > sleep time bounding to MAX_PAUSE.
> > 
> > Firstly, MAX_PAUSE will only be applied when the dirty pages rush
> > high (dirty exceeded).  Secondly, the dirty exceeded state is global
> > to all tasks, in which case each task will sleep for MAX_PAUSE equally.
> > So the fairness is still maintained in dirty exceeded state. 
> 
> Its not immediately apparent how dirty_exceeded and MAX_PAUSE interact,
> but having everybody sleep MAX_PAUSE doesn't necessarily mean its fair,
> its only fair if they dirty at the same rate.

Yeah I forget to mention that, but when dirty_exceeded, the tasks will
typically sleep for MAX_PAUSE on every 8 pages, so resulting in the
same dirty rate :)

Thanks,
Fengguang