On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:23:07PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 12:27 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > + if (unlikely(current->nr_dirtied >= current->nr_dirtied_pause ||
> > + bdi->dirty_exceeded)) {
> > + balance_dirty_pages(mapping, current->nr_dirtied);
> > + current->nr_dirtied = 0;
> > }
>
> Was it a conscious choice to use
> current->nr_dirtied = 0
> over
> current->nr_dirtied -= current->nr_dirtied_pause
> ?
>
> The former will cause a drift in pause times due to truncation of the
> excess.
It should be fine in either way, as long as the "truncated" number is
passed to balance_dirty_pages():
+ balance_dirty_pages(mapping, current->nr_dirtied);
+ current->nr_dirtied = 0;
or
+ balance_dirty_pages(mapping, current->nr_dirtied_pause);
+ current->nr_dirtied -= current->nr_dirtied_pause;
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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
