lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/18] block: add bdi flag to indicate risk of io queue underrun
From
Date
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 10:37 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 10:22:48PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 09:53 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2011-08-31 14:40:58.000000000 +0800
> > > @@ -1067,6 +1067,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > > nr_dirty, bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty,
> > > start_time);
> > >
> > > + if (unlikely(!dirty_exceeded && bdi_async_underrun(bdi)))
> > > + break;
> > > +
> > > dirty_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit;
> > > pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh,
> > > background_thresh, nr_dirty,
> >
> > So dirty_exceeded looks like:
> >
> >
> > 1109 dirty_exceeded = (bdi_dirty > bdi_thresh) ||
> > 1110 (nr_dirty > dirty_thresh);
> >
> > Would it make sense to write it as:
> >
> > if (nr_dirty > dirty_thresh ||
> > (nr_dirty > freerun && bdi_dirty > bdi_thresh))
> > dirty_exceeded = 1;
> >
> > So that we don't actually throttle bdi thingies when we're still in the
> > freerun area?
>
> Sounds not necessary -- (nr_dirty > freerun) is implicitly true
> because there is a big break early in the loop:
>
> if (nr_dirty > freerun)
> break;

Ah, totally didn't see that. Thanks!


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-07 19:09    [W:0.055 / U:4.516 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site