[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1313154259.6576.42.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:04:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <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 2/5] writeback: dirty position control
On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 19:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Now all of the above would seem to suggest:
>
> dirty_ratelimit := ref_bw
>
> However for that you use:
>
> if (pos_bw < dirty_ratelimit && ref_bw < dirty_ratelimit)
> dirty_ratelimit = max(ref_bw, pos_bw);
>
> if (pos_bw > dirty_ratelimit && ref_bw > dirty_ratelimit)
> dirty_ratelimit = min(ref_bw, pos_bw);
>
> You have:
>
> pos_bw = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio
>
> Which is ref_bw without the write_bw/dirty_bw factor, this confuses me..
> why are you ignoring the shift in output vs input rate there?
Could you elaborate on this primary feedback loop? Its the one part I
don't feel I actually understand well.
--
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