Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm: per device dirty threshold
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Tue Apr 24 2007 - 06:12:39 EST
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:47:20 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Ahh, now I see; I had totally blocked out these few lines:
> > >
> > > pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
> > > if (pages_written >= write_chunk)
> > > break; /* We've done our duty */
> > >
> > > yeah, those look dubious indeed... And reading back Neil's comments, I
> > > think he agrees.
> > >
> > > Shall we just kill those?
> > I think we should.
> > Athough I'm a little afraid, that Akpm will tell me again, that I'm a
> > stupid git, and that those lines are in fact vitally important ;)
> It depends what they're replaced with.
> That code is there, iirc, to prevent a process from getting stuck in
> balance_dirty_pages() forever due to the dirtying activity of other
> hm, we ask the process to write write_chunk pages each go around the loop.
> So if it wrote write-chunk/2 pages on the first pass it might end up writing
> write_chunk*1.5 pages total. I guess that's rare and doesn't matter much
> if it does happen - the upper bound is write_chunk*2-1, I think.
Right, but I think the problem is that its dirty -> writeback, not dirty
-> writeback completed.
Ie. they don't guarantee progress, it could be that the total
nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback will steadily increase due to this break.
How about ensuring that vm_writeout_total increases least
2*sync_writeback_pages() during our stay in balance_dirty_pages(). That
way we have the guarantee that more pages get written out than can be
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/