[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253804615.18939.36.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:03:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
shaohua.li@...el.com, chris.mason@...cle.com, jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] writeback: stop background writeback when below
background threshold
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 16:40 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
>
> Treat bdi_start_writeback(0) as a special request to do background write,
> and stop such work when we are below the background dirty threshold.
>
> Also simplify the (nr_pages <= 0) checks. Since we already pass in
> nr_pages=LONG_MAX for WB_SYNC_ALL and background writes, we don't
> need to worry about it being decreased to zero.
>
> Reported-by: Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>
> CC: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
> ---
> @@ -720,20 +730,16 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
>
> for (;;) {
> /*
> + * Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed
> */
> + if (args->nr_pages <= 0)
> break;
>
> /*
> + * For background writeout, stop when we are below the
> + * background dirty threshold
> */
> + if (args->for_background && !over_bground_thresh())
> break;
What I'm not getting is why this is conditional on for_background(),
shouldn't we always stop writeback when below the background threshold?
--
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