On Sun 11-10-09 05:33:39, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 11:12:31PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > > > + /* don't wait if we've done enough */ > > > + if (pages_written >= write_chunk) > > > + break; > > > } > > > - > > > - if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh) > > > - break; > > > - if (pages_written >= write_chunk) > > > - break; /* We've done our duty */ > > > - > > Here, we had an opportunity to break from the loop even if we didn't > > manage to write everything (for example because per-bdi thread managed to > > write enough or because enough IO has completed while we were trying to > > write). After the patch, we will sleep. IMHO that's not good... > > Note that the pages_written check is moved several lines up in the patch :) > > > I'd think that if we did all that work in writeback_inodes_wbc we could > > spend the effort on regetting and rechecking the stats... > > Yes maybe. I didn't care it because the later throttle queue patch totally > removed the loop and hence to need to reget the stats :) Yes, since the loop gets removed in the end, this does not matter. You are right. > > > schedule_timeout_interruptible(pause); > > > > > > /* > > > @@ -577,8 +547,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a > > > pause = HZ / 10; > > > } > > > > > > - if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback < bdi_thresh && > > > - bdi->dirty_exceeded) > > > + if (!dirty_exceeded && bdi->dirty_exceeded) > > > bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0; > > Here we fail to clear dirty_exceeded if we are over global dirty limit > > but not over per-bdi dirty limit... > > You must be mistaken: dirty_exceeded = (over bdi limit || over global limit), > so !dirty_exceeded = (!over bdi limit && !over global limit). Exactly. Previously, the check was: if (!over bdi limit) bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0; Now it is if (!over bdi limit && !over global limit) bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0; That's clearly not equivalent which is what I was trying to point out. But looking at where dirty_exceeded is used, your new way is probably more useful. It's just a bit counterintuitive that bdi->dirty_exceeded is set even if the per-bdi limit is not exceeded... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
