[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Ethan Solomita <solo@...gle.com>
cc: akpm@...l.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
Dave Chinner <dgc@....com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
> cpuset_write_dirty_map.htm
>
> In __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() you always call cpuset_update_dirty_nodes()
> but in __set_page_dirty_buffers() you call it only if page->mapping is still
> set after locking. Is there a reason for the difference? Also a question not
> about your patch: why do those functions call __mark_inode_dirty() even if the
> dirty page has been truncated and mapping == NULL?
If page->mapping has been cleared then the page was removed from the
mapping. __mark_inode_dirty just dirties the inode. If a truncation occurs
then the inode was modified.
> cpuset_write_throttle.htm
>
> I noticed that several lines have leading spaces. I didn't check if other
> patches have the problem too.
Maybe download the patches? How did those strange .htm endings get
appended to the patches?
> In get_dirty_limits(), when cpusets are configd you don't subtract highmen
> the same way that is done without cpusets. Is this intentional?
That is something in flux upstream. Linus changed it recently. Do it one
way or the other.
> It seems that dirty_exceeded is still a global punishment across cpusets.
> Should it be addressed?
Sure. It would be best if you could place that somehow in a cpuset.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists