Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/13] writeback: per-task rate limit on balance_dirty_pages() | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:23:07 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 12:27 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > + if (unlikely(current->nr_dirtied >= current->nr_dirtied_pause || > + bdi->dirty_exceeded)) { > + balance_dirty_pages(mapping, current->nr_dirtied); > + current->nr_dirtied = 0; > }
Was it a conscious choice to use current->nr_dirtied = 0 over current->nr_dirtied -= current->nr_dirtied_pause ?
The former will cause a drift in pause times due to truncation of the excess.
| |