On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:29:23 +0200 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But really it'd be better if the throttling happened down in > > pipe_to_file(), on a per-page basis. As it stands we can dirty an > > arbitrary number of pagecache pages without throttling. I think? > > That's pretty exactly why it isn't done in the actor, to avoid doing it > per-page. As it's going to be PIPE_BUFFERS (16) pages max, I think this > is better. > > Back in the splice early days, the balance_dirty_pages() actually showed > up in profiles when it was done on a per-page basis. So I'm reluctant to > change it :-) That's why (the misnamed) balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited() exists? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
