Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:41:22 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] a few writeback fixes |
| |
On Mon, Sep 21 2009, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 21-09-09 14:56:20, Jens Axboe wrote: > Hi Jens, > > > Jan, since we're not really sure on the inode wait yet, I dropped that > > patch. It's definitely something to look into, as are the congestion > > bits. > OK. > > Honza > > > diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c > > index 1eea4fa..6bb510b 100644 > > --- a/mm/page-writeback.c > > +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c > > @@ -485,6 +485,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping) > > unsigned long bdi_thresh; > > unsigned long pages_written = 0; > > unsigned long write_chunk = sync_writeback_pages(); > > + unsigned long pause = 1; > > > > struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info; > > > > @@ -561,7 +562,15 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping) > > if (pages_written >= write_chunk) > > break; /* We've done our duty */ > > > > - schedule_timeout(1); > > + schedule_timeout_interruptible(pause); > > + > > + /* > > + * Increase the delay for each loop, up to our previous > > + * default of taking a 100ms nap. > > + */ > > + pause <<= 1; > > + if (pause < HZ / 10) > > + pause = HZ / 10; > Isn't this check the other way around?
Gah it is, how silly. I have fixed it up. Thanks, eagle eyes :-)
-- Jens Axboe
| |