lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] writeback: take account of NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP in balance_dirty_pages()
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:06:57 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:

>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> ---
> mm/page-writeback.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-07-11 08:41:37.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-07-11 08:42:14.000000000 +0800
> @@ -503,11 +503,12 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> };
>
> get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh,
> - &bdi_thresh, bdi);
> + &bdi_thresh, bdi);
>
> nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> - global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> - nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
> + global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> + nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) +
> + global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP);
>
> bdi_nr_reclaimable = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> bdi_nr_writeback = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
>

hm, OK.

I wonder whether we could/should have unified NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP and
NR_UNSTABLE_NFS. Their "meanings" aren't quite the same, but perhaps
some "treat page as dirty because the fs is futzing with it" thing.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-12 23:55    [W:0.490 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site