[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1225356120.7803.5.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:42:00 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Derek Fults <dfults@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] mm: make page writeback obey cpuset constraints
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 12:18 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > + is_subset = cpuset_populate_dirty_limits(dl, &dirtyable_memory,
> > > + &nr_mapped, nodes);
> > > + if (!is_subset) {
> > > + dl->nr_dirty = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> > > + dl->nr_unstable = global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> > > + dl->nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
> > > + dirtyable_memory = determine_dirtyable_memory();
> > > + nr_mapped = global_page_state(NR_FILE_MAPPED) +
> > > + global_page_state(NR_ANON_PAGES);
> > > + } else
> > > + dirtyable_memory -= highmem_dirtyable_memory(nodes,
> > > + dirtyable_memory);
> >
> > Why not fold that all into cpuset_populate_dirty_limits() ?
> >
>
> cpuset_populate_dirty_limits() is a no-op on !CONFIG_CPUSETS kernels.
Right, humm. Maybe introduce a populate_dirty_limits() and differentiate
that between CONFIG_CPUSETS and not, and make it do everything.
That would get rid of this fudge I think, no?
--
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