On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 01:31:17PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 09:32 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > I'd propose to remove the above 'if' and liberate the following three 'if's.
> > >
> > > That might work, but it looses the total dirty_thresh constraint. The
> > > sum of per-bdi dirties _should_ not be larger than that, but I'm not
> > > sure it won't ever be.
> > >
> > > The clip code Richard removed ensured that, and I think I wrote that out
> > > of more than sheer paranoia, but I'm not sure anymore :/
> >
> > Oh I assumed that your per-bdi throttling is not too permissive to
> > exceed the global dirty_thresh. In theory the per-bdi throttling
> > should be able to quickly stop the growing of (nr_reclaimable +
> > nr_writeback). Once dirty_thresh is reached we already los
>
> Right, so:
>
> bdi_thresh_n = dirty_thresh * p(n) + eps.
>
> and
>
> \Sum_n p(n) = 1
>
> So:
>
> \Sum_n bdi_thresh_n = dirty_thresh + n*eps
>
> Which yields an O(n) error bound.
>
> I'm just not sure how large the thing is in reality, and paranoia won
> out.
A wild question: is it possible to make the equation:
bdi_thresh_n = dirty_thresh * p(n) - eps.
?
--
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
