[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170921115206.GB16731@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:52:06 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc: jack@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
mhocko@...e.com, vdavydov.dev@...il.com, jlayton@...hat.com,
nborisov@...e.com, tytso@....edu, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mcgrof@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org, wuqixuan@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: introduce validity check on vm dirtiness settings
On Thu 21-09-17 21:59:52, Yafang Shao wrote:
> we can find the logic in domain_dirty_limits() that
> when dirty bg_thresh is bigger than dirty thresh,
> bg_thresh will be set as thresh * 1 / 2.
> if (bg_thresh >= thresh)
> bg_thresh = thresh / 2;
>
> But actually we can set vm background dirtiness bigger than
> vm dirtiness successfully. This behavior may mislead us.
> We'd better do this validity check at the beginning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Looks good. You can add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Just one nit below:
> +
> + /* needn't do validity check if the value is not different. */
> + if (ret == 0 && write && dirty_background_ratio != old_ratio) {
Whitespace before the comment is broken. Generally I don't think the
comment brings much so I'd just delete it.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists