[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegucNfxYsz3G2JwxK5JtDPaYQu-SUR_VGvwCDz_iTGBt5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 13:39:19 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: "Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@...allels.com>
Cc: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...allels.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
"fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
riel@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 14/14] mm: Account for WRITEBACK_TEMP in balance_dirty_pages
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Maxim V. Patlasov
<mpatlasov@...allels.com> wrote:
> I'm for accounting NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP because balance_dirty_pages is already
> overcomplicated (imho) and adding new clauses for FUSE makes me sick.
Agreed.
But instead of further complexifying balance_dirty_pages() fuse
specific throttling can be done in fuse_page_mkwrite(), I think.
And at that point NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP really becomes irrelevant to the
dirty balancing logic.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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