[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14658.1292352152@localhost>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:42:32 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.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 16/35] writeback: increase min pause time on concurrent dirtiers
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:51:33 +0800, Wu Fengguang said:
> > > + /* (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks */
> > > + t = (hi - lo) * (10 * HZ) / 1024;
> >
> > Either I need more caffeine, or the comment doesn't match the code
> > if HZ != 1000?
>
> The "ms" in the comment may be confusing, but the pause time (t) is
> measured in jiffies :) Hope the below patch helps.
No, I meant that 10 * HZ evaluates to different numbers depending what
the CONFIG_HZ parameter is set to - 100, 250, 1000, or some other
custom value. Does this code behave correctly on a CONFIG_HZ=100 kernel?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists