Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm: per device dirty threshold

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:12:18 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
> > processes.
> > 
> > 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.

Don't think so.  We call balance_dirty_pages() once per ratelimit_pages
dirtyings and when we get there, we write 1.5*ratelimit_pages pages.

-
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/