[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110929115712.GA18183@localhost>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:57:12 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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 03/18] writeback: dirty rate control
A minor fix to this patch.
While testing the fio mmap workload, bdi->dirty_ratelimit is observed
to be knocked down to 1 and then brought up high in regular intervals.
The showed up problem is, it took long delays to bring up
bdi->dirty_ratelimit due to the round-down problem of the below
task_ratelimit calculation: when dirty_ratelimit=1 and pos_ratio = 1.5,
the resulted task_ratelimit will be 1, which fooled stops the logic
from increasing dirty_ratelimit as long as pos_ratio < 2. The below
change (from round-down to round-up) can nicely fix this problem.
Thanks,
Fengguang
---
--- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2011-09-24 15:52:11.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2011-09-24 15:52:11.000000000 +0800
@@ -766,6 +766,7 @@ static void bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit(s
*/
task_ratelimit = (u64)dirty_ratelimit *
pos_ratio >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
+ task_ratelimit++; /* it helps rampup dirty_ratelimit from tiny values */
/*
* A linear estimation of the "balanced" throttle rate. The theory is,
--
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