On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:05:57PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 09:53 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > @@ -591,6 +790,7 @@ static void global_update_bandwidth(unsi
> >
> > void __bdi_update_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> > unsigned long thresh,
> > + unsigned long bg_thresh,
> > unsigned long dirty,
> > unsigned long bdi_thresh,
> > unsigned long bdi_dirty,
> > @@ -627,6 +827,7 @@ snapshot:
> >
> > static void bdi_update_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> > unsigned long thresh,
> > + unsigned long bg_thresh,
> > unsigned long dirty,
> > unsigned long bdi_thresh,
> > unsigned long bdi_dirty,
> > @@ -635,8 +836,8 @@ static void bdi_update_bandwidth(struct
> > if (time_is_after_eq_jiffies(bdi->bw_time_stamp + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
> > return;
> > spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> > - __bdi_update_bandwidth(bdi, thresh, dirty, bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty,
> > - start_time);
> > + __bdi_update_bandwidth(bdi, thresh, bg_thresh, dirty,
> > + bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty, start_time);
> > spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -677,7 +878,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > * catch-up. This avoids (excessively) small writeouts
> > * when the bdi limits are ramping up.
> > */
> > - if (nr_dirty <= (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) / 2)
> > + if (nr_dirty <= dirty_freerun_ceiling(dirty_thresh,
> > + background_thresh))
> > break;
> >
> > bdi_thresh = bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, dirty_thresh);
> > @@ -721,8 +923,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > if (!bdi->dirty_exceeded)
> > bdi->dirty_exceeded = 1;
> >
> > - bdi_update_bandwidth(bdi, dirty_thresh, nr_dirty,
> > - bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty, start_time);
> > + bdi_update_bandwidth(bdi, dirty_thresh, background_thresh,
> > + nr_dirty, bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty,
> > + start_time);
> >
> > /* Note: nr_reclaimable denotes nr_dirty + nr_unstable.
> > * Unstable writes are a feature of certain networked
> > --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-08-26 15:57:18.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-08-26 15:57:20.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ static inline bool over_bground_thresh(v
> > static void wb_update_bandwidth(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> > unsigned long start_time)
> > {
> > - __bdi_update_bandwidth(wb->bdi, 0, 0, 0, 0, start_time);
> > + __bdi_update_bandwidth(wb->bdi, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, start_time);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > --- linux-next.orig/include/linux/writeback.h 2011-08-26 15:57:18.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux-next/include/linux/writeback.h 2011-08-26 15:57:20.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ unsigned long bdi_dirty_limit(struct bac
> >
> > void __bdi_update_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> > unsigned long thresh,
> > + unsigned long bg_thresh,
> > unsigned long dirty,
> > unsigned long bdi_thresh,
> > unsigned long bdi_dirty,
>
>
> All this function signature muck doesn't seem immediately relevant to
> the introduction of bdi_position_ratio() since the new function isn't
> actually used.
Ahh, you are right.
I'll just make the chunks a standalone patch. Logically they are more
related to patch 03 "writeback: dirty rate control", however let's not
add burden to the already complex patch 03..
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
