lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/19] writeback tunables
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Russell King wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 12:33:18PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> > ...
> > > > +int dirty_expire_centisecs = 30 * 100;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Blind guess - didn't the 100 wan't to be HZ?!
> >
> > The units are centiseconds (as the name suggests). 5 * 100 centiseconds = 5
> > seconds, so the dirty writeback timeout is 5 seconds. Check the code a
> > little further and you'll see HZ gets factored into them on use.
> >
>
> Yup. Sorry about the "_centisecs" thing. That's a bit anal, but
> I tend to think that it's best to be really explicit about the
> units, make it a bit easier to use. I don't know how many times
> I've had to peer in fs/buffer.c to remember what those dang numbers do.
>
> Possibly, "seconds" may be sufficiently high resolution for
> these things. But I wasn't sure - maybe someone wants to
> run the kupdate function five times per second? Dunno.

Possibly, we should just concede that anywhere where we're measuring time,
we'll eventually want to use a non-integer external representation just so
we're not building in obsolescense. With a couple simple wrappers like
atoif(".667",HZ)=67, this could be pretty painless.
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.120 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site