[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1312914906.1083.71.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:35:06 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] writeback: per task dirty rate limit
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 16:44 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>
> Add two fields to task_struct.
>
> 1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
> 2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
>
> The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
> scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
>
> XXX: The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 10k tasks start
> dirtying pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a
> large initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be
> exceeded long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence
> call balance_dirty_pages().
Right, so why remove the per-cpu threshold? you can keep that as a bound
on the number of out-standing dirty pages.
Loosing that bound is actually a bad thing (TM), since you could have
configured a tight dirty limit and lock up your machine this way.
--
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