[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290596302.2072.445.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:58:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 12:27 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> @@ -555,8 +592,10 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> pause = clamp_val(pause, 1, HZ/10);
>
> pause:
> + bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
> __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> io_schedule_timeout(pause);
> + bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
>
> /*
> * The bdi thresh is somehow "soft" limit derived from the
So its really a two part bandwidth calculation, the first call is:
bdi_get_bandwidth()
and the second call is:
bdi_update_bandwidth()
Would it make sense to actually implement it with two functions instead
of overloading the functionality of the one function?
--
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