[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100723122015.GA8210@localhost>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:20:15 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] writeback: sync old inodes first in background
writeback
> For the case of of a heavy dirtier (dd) and concurrent light dirtiers
> (some random processes), the light dirtiers won't be easily throttled.
> task_dirty_limit() handles that case well. It will give light dirtiers
> higher threshold than heavy dirtiers so that only the latter will be
> dirty throttled.
The caveat is, the real dirty throttling threshold is not exactly the
value specified by vm.dirty_ratio or vm.dirty_bytes. Instead it's some
value slightly lower than it. That real value differs for each process,
which is a nice trick to throttle heavy dirtiers first. If I remember
it right, that's invented by Peter and Andrew.
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