[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091008083609.GA9228@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:36:09 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Myklebust Trond <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/45] writeback: introduce wait queue for
balance_dirty_pages()
On Thu, Oct 08 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:58 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >
> > > How this runqueue->nr_iowait is handled now ?
> >
> > Good question. io_schedule() has an old comment for throttling IO wait:
> >
> > * But don't do that if it is a deliberate, throttling IO wait (this task
> > * has set its backing_dev_info: the queue against which it should throttle)
> > */
> > void __sched io_schedule(void)
> >
> > So it looks both Jens' and this patch behaves right in ignoring the
> > iowait accounting for balance_dirty_pages() :)
>
> Well it is a change in behaviour, and I think IOWAIT makes sense when
> we're blocked due to io throttle..
>
> Hmm?
Yep agree, if we're deliberately waiting on IO, it should count as
iowait time.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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