On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 05:51:30PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:49:46PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > The dirty_ratio was siliently limited in global_dirty_limits() to >= 5%.
> > This is not a user expected behavior. And it's inconsistent with
> > calc_period_shift(), which uses the plain vm_dirty_ratio value.
> >
> > Let's rip the arbitrary internal bound. It may impact some very weird
> > user space applications. However we are going to dynamicly sizing the
> > dirty limits anyway, which may well break such applications, too.
> >
> > At the same time, fix balance_dirty_pages() to work with the
> > dirty_thresh=0 case. This allows applications to proceed when
> > dirty+writeback pages are all cleaned.
> >
> > And ">" fits with the name "exceeded" better than ">=" does. Neil
> > think it is an aesthetic improvement as well as a functional one :)
> >
> > CC: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > Proposed-by: Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/fs-writeback.c | 2 +-
> > mm/page-writeback.c | 16 +++++-----------
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-08-29 08:10:30.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-08-29 08:12:08.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -415,14 +415,8 @@ void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *
> >
> > if (vm_dirty_bytes)
> > dirty = DIV_ROUND_UP(vm_dirty_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> > - else {
> > - int dirty_ratio;
> > -
> > - dirty_ratio = vm_dirty_ratio;
> > - if (dirty_ratio < 5)
> > - dirty_ratio = 5;
> > - dirty = (dirty_ratio * available_memory) / 100;
> > - }
> > + else
> > + dirty = (vm_dirty_ratio * available_memory) / 100;
> >
>
> What kernel is this? In a recent mainline kernel and on linux-next, this
> is
It applies to linux-next 20100903.
> dirty = (dirty_ratio * available_memory) / 100;
>
> i.e. * instead of +. With +, the value for dirty is almost always going
> to be simply 1%.
Where's the "+" come from?
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>