[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290603400.2072.466.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:56:40 +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>,
Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>,
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" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] writeback: reduce per-bdi dirty threshold ramp
up time
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 20:39 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ static int calc_period_shift(void)
> > > else
> > > dirty_total = (vm_dirty_ratio * determine_dirtyable_memory()) /
> > > 100;
> > > - return 2 + ilog2(dirty_total - 1);
> > > + return ilog2(dirty_total - 1) - 1;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> >
> > You could actually improve upon this now that you have per-bdi bandwidth
> > estimations, simply set the period to (seconds * bandwidth) to get
> > convergence in @seconds.
>
> I'd like to, but there is the global vs. bdi discrepancy to be
> addressed first :)
>
> How about doing this simple fix first, and then revisit doing per-bdi
> vm_dirties after the bandwidth estimation goes upstream?
Sure
--
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