[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1HgJnl-0000gD-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:07:21 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, neilb@...e.de,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dgc@....com,
tomoki.sekiyama.qu@...achi.com, nikita@...sterfs.com,
trond.myklebust@....uio.no, yingchao.zhou@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm: per device dirty threshold
> > No, we _start_ writeback for 1.5*ratelimit_pages pages, but do not
> > wait for those writebacks to finish.
> >
> > So for a slow device and a fast writer, dirty+writeback can indeed
> > increase beyond the dirty threshold.
> >
>
> Nope, try it.
>
> If a process dirties 1000 pages it'll then go into balance_dirty_pages()
> and start writeback against 1,500 pages. When we hit dirty_ratio that
> process will be required to write back 1,500 pages for each eight pages
> which it dirtied. We'll quickly reach the stage where there are no longer
> 1,500 pages to be written back and the process will block in
> balance_dirty_pages() until the dirty+writeback level subsides.
OK. I was confused by this:
static long ratelimit_pages = 32;
and didn't realize, that that 32 is totally irrelevant.
So I'm still right, that for N dirty pages, the writer is allowed to
dirty N/1500*8 more dirty pages, but I agree, that this isn't really
an issue.
Miklos
-
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