Hello, Vivek.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:06:26PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
...
> > +int mapping_congested(struct address_space *mapping,
> > + struct task_struct *task, int cong_bits)
> > +{
> > + struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> > + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(inode);
> > + struct bdi_writeback *wb;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!inode || !inode_cgwb_enabled(inode))
> > + return wb_congested(&bdi->wb, cong_bits);
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + wb = wb_find_current(bdi);
>
> I am wondering that why do we lookup bdi_writeback using blkcg of
> task and why not use the bdi_writeback associated with inode?
>
> IIUC, whole idea is to attach an inode to bdi_writeback (and
> change it later if need be) and that writeback is used for
> controlling IO to that inode. And blkcg associated with the
> writeback will be put in bio which in turn will be used
> by block layer.
>
> IOW, blkcg of a bio gets decided by the bdi_writeback
> attached to inode and current writer does not seem to
> matter. So I am not sure why mapping_congested() should
> take task's blkcg into consideration instead of just
> taking bdi_writeback from inode and see if it is congested
> or not.
Yeap, I agree that attributing to the inode's blkcg makes more sense.
I need to think more about it but will prolly change it to use
inode->i_wb instead.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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>