On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 02:18:54AM +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:29:54AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > [..] > > > > - ratelimit = ratelimit_pages; > > > > - if (mapping->backing_dev_info->dirty_exceeded) > > > > + ratelimit = current->nr_dirtied_pause; > > > > + if (bdi->dirty_exceeded) > > > > ratelimit = 8; > > > > > > Should we make sure that ratelimit is more than 8? It could be that > > > ratelimit is 1 and we set it higher (just reverse of what we wanted?) > > > > Good catch! I actually just fixed it in that direction :) > > > > if (bdi->dirty_exceeded) > > - ratelimit = 8; > > + ratelimit = min(ratelimit, 32 >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 10)); > > With page size 64K, will above lead to retelimit 0? Is that what you want. > I wouldn't think so. Yeah, it looks a bit weird.. however ratelimit=0 would behave the same with ratelimit=1 because balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() is always called with (nr_pages_dirtied >= 1). Thanks, Fengguang -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>