[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091110020858.GA5749@localhost>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:08:58 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Martin Knoblauch <spamtrap@...bisoft.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Likley stupid question on "throttle_vm_writeout"
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 04:26:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 07:15 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> > Hi, (please CC me on replies)
> >
> > I have a likely stupid question on the function "throttle_vm_writeout". Looking at the code I find:
> >
> > if (global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) +
> > global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) <= dirty_thresh)
> > break;
> > congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10);
> >
> > Shouldn't the NR_FILE_DIRTY pages be considered as well?
>
> Ha, you just trod onto a piece of ugly I'd totally forgotten about ;-)
>
> The intent of throttle_vm_writeout() is to limit the total pages in
> writeout and to wait for them to go-away.
Like this:
vmscan fast => large NR_WRITEBACK => throttle vmscan based on it
> Everybody hates the function, nobody managed to actually come up with
> anything better.
btw, here is another reason to limit NR_WRITEBACK: I saw many
throttle_vm_writeout() waits if there is no wait queue to limit
NR_WRITEBACK (eg. NFS). In that case the (steadily) big NR_WRITEBACK
is _not_ caused by fast vmscan..
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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