[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Hmmmm.... Sorry. I got distracted and I have sent them to Kame-san who was
> interested in working on them.
> I have placed the most recent version at

Hi Christoph -- a few comments on the patches:


In __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() you always call
cpuset_update_dirty_nodes() but in __set_page_dirty_buffers() you call
it only if page->mapping is still set after locking. Is there a reason
for the difference? Also a question not about your patch: why do those
functions call __mark_inode_dirty() even if the dirty page has been
truncated and mapping == NULL?


I noticed that several lines have leading spaces. I didn't check if
other patches have the problem too.

In get_dirty_limits(), when cpusets are configd you don't subtract
highmen the same way that is done without cpusets. Is this intentional?

It seems that dirty_exceeded is still a global punishment across
cpusets. Should it be addressed?

-- Ethan

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-21 03:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean