On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:06:57 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Richard Kennedy <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/page-writeback.c | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-07-11 08:41:37.000000000 +0800 > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-07-11 08:42:14.000000000 +0800 > @@ -503,11 +503,12 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a > }; > > get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, > - &bdi_thresh, bdi); > + &bdi_thresh, bdi); > > nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) + > - global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS); > - nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK); > + global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS); > + nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) + > + global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP); > > bdi_nr_reclaimable = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE); > bdi_nr_writeback = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK); > hm, OK. I wonder whether we could/should have unified NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP and NR_UNSTABLE_NFS. Their "meanings" aren't quite the same, but perhaps some "treat page as dirty because the fs is futzing with it" thing. -- 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
