2017-09-27 10:54 GMT+08:00 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:38:21 +0800 Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > And existing scripts which do not do this will cease to work correctly,
>> > no?
>> >
>>
>> The existing scritpts won't work correctly. That's also what I have
>> worried before.
>>
>> But under this condition, there's a error message generated by "sysctl
>> -w" to tell them the first setting was failure.
>> This error message may be a reminder to them that there are some
>> connections between background and direct limit, and should not set
>> arbitrary.
>> May that's better. I'm not sure.
>
> Maybe we can leave the logic as-is and simply print a warning when an
> illogical state exists.
>
You mean, just modified the code as bellow ?
in function domain_dirty_limits()
- if (bg_thresh >= thresh)
+ if (bg_thresh >= thresh) {
+ pr_warn("vm direct limit should greater than background limit.\n");
bg_thresh = thresh / 2;
+ }
will this generate lots of log ?
Thanks
Yafang
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
