lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/13] writeback: per-task rate limit on balance_dirty_pages()
From
Date
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 18:43 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:23:07PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It should be fine in either way, as long as the "truncated" number is
> passed to balance_dirty_pages():
>
> + balance_dirty_pages(mapping, current->nr_dirtied);
> + current->nr_dirtied = 0;
>
> or
>
> + balance_dirty_pages(mapping, current->nr_dirtied_pause);
> + current->nr_dirtied -= current->nr_dirtied_pause;

ok, just wanted to make sure you'd considered it.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-24 11:53    [W:0.058 / U:7.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site