[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1315822779.26517.23.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:19:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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 10/18] writeback: dirty position control - bdi reserve
area
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 20:31 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > + x_intercept = min(write_bw, freerun);
> > > + if (bdi_dirty < x_intercept) {
> >
> > So the point of the freerun point is that we never throttle before it,
> > so basically all the below shouldn't be needed at all, right?
>
> Yes!
>
> > > + if (bdi_dirty > x_intercept / 8) {
> > > + pos_ratio *= x_intercept;
> > > + do_div(pos_ratio, bdi_dirty);
> > > + } else
> > > + pos_ratio *= 8;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > return pos_ratio;
> > > }
Does that mean we can remove this whole block?
> >
> > So why not add:
> >
> > if (likely(dirty < freerun))
> > return 2;
> >
> > at the start of this function and leave it at that?
>
> Because we already has
>
> if (nr_dirty < freerun)
> break;
>
> in the main balance_dirty_pages() loop ;)
Bah! I keep missing that ;-)
--
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