On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 10:22:48PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 09:53 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2011-08-31 14:40:58.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -1067,6 +1067,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > nr_dirty, bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty,
> > start_time);
> >
> > + if (unlikely(!dirty_exceeded && bdi_async_underrun(bdi)))
> > + break;
> > +
> > dirty_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit;
> > pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh,
> > background_thresh, nr_dirty,
>
> So dirty_exceeded looks like:
>
>
> 1109 dirty_exceeded = (bdi_dirty > bdi_thresh) ||
> 1110 (nr_dirty > dirty_thresh);
>
> Would it make sense to write it as:
>
> if (nr_dirty > dirty_thresh ||
> (nr_dirty > freerun && bdi_dirty > bdi_thresh))
> dirty_exceeded = 1;
>
> So that we don't actually throttle bdi thingies when we're still in the
> freerun area?
Sounds not necessary -- (nr_dirty > freerun) is implicitly true
because there is a big break early in the loop:
if (nr_dirty > freerun)
break;
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
