2017-11-28 18:41 GMT+08:00 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>:
> On Tue 28-11-17 18:33:02, Yafang Shao wrote:
>> 2017-11-28 18:25 GMT+08:00 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>:
>> > Hi Yafang,
>> >
>> > On Tue 28-11-17 11:11:40, Yafang Shao wrote:
>> >> What about bellow change ?
>> >> It makes the function domain_dirty_limits() more clear.
>> >> And the result will have a higher precision.
>> >
>> > Frankly, I don't find this any better and you've just lost the additional
>> > precision of ratios computed in the "if (gdtc)" branch the multiplication by
>> > PAGE_SIZE got us.
>> >
>>
>> What about bellow change? It won't be lost any more, becasue
>> bytes and bg_bytes are both PAGE_SIZE aligned.
>>
>> - if (bytes)
>> - ratio = min(DIV_ROUND_UP(bytes, global_avail),
>> - PAGE_SIZE);
>> - if (bg_bytes)
>> - bg_ratio = min(DIV_ROUND_UP(bg_bytes, global_avail),
>> - PAGE_SIZE);
>> + if (bytes) {
>> + pages = DIV_ROUND_UP(bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
>> + ratio = DIV_ROUND_UP(pages * 100, global_avail);
>> +
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (bg_bytes) {
>> + pages = DIV_ROUND_UP(bg_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
>> + bg_ratio = DIV_ROUND_UP(pages * 100, global_avail);
>> + }
>
> Not better... Look, in the original code the 'ratio' and 'bg_ratio'
> variables contain a number between 0 and 1 as fractions of 1/PAGE_SIZE. In
> your code you have in these variables fractions of 1/100. That's certainly
> less precise no matter how you get to those numbers.
>
Understood.
Thanks :)
--
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>
