Re: [PATCH 1/6] writeback: take account of NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP inbalance_dirty_pages()

[Andrew Morton]

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:06:57 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Signed-off-by: Richard Kennedy <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/page-writeback.c |    7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-07-11 08:41:37.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-07-11 08:42:14.000000000 +0800
> @@ -503,11 +503,12 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
>  		};
>  
>  		get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh,
> -				&bdi_thresh, bdi);
> +				 &bdi_thresh, bdi);
>  
>  		nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> -					global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> -		nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
> +				 global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> +		nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) +
> +			       global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP);
>  
>  		bdi_nr_reclaimable = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
>  		bdi_nr_writeback = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
> 

hm, OK.

I wonder whether we could/should have unified NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP and
NR_UNSTABLE_NFS.  Their "meanings" aren't quite the same, but perhaps
some "treat page as dirty because the fs is futzing with it" thing.
--
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/