[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110815141138.GB23601@localhost>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:11:38 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"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>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] writeback: dirty rate control
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 01:10:26AM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 22:00 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >
> > > Although I'm not quite sure how he keeps fairness in light of the
> > > sleep time bounding to MAX_PAUSE.
> >
> > Firstly, MAX_PAUSE will only be applied when the dirty pages rush
> > high (dirty exceeded). Secondly, the dirty exceeded state is global
> > to all tasks, in which case each task will sleep for MAX_PAUSE equally.
> > So the fairness is still maintained in dirty exceeded state.
>
> Its not immediately apparent how dirty_exceeded and MAX_PAUSE interact,
> but having everybody sleep MAX_PAUSE doesn't necessarily mean its fair,
> its only fair if they dirty at the same rate.
Yeah I forget to mention that, but when dirty_exceeded, the tasks will
typically sleep for MAX_PAUSE on every 8 pages, so resulting in the
same dirty rate :)
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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