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:0.022 / U:1.868 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site