Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 14/14] mm: Account for WRITEBACK_TEMP in balance_dirty_pages

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Maxim V. Patlasov
<mpatlasov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm for accounting NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP because balance_dirty_pages is already
> overcomplicated (imho) and adding new clauses for FUSE makes me sick.

Agreed.

But instead of further complexifying balance_dirty_pages() fuse
specific throttling can be done in fuse_page_mkwrite(), I think.

And at that point NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP really becomes irrelevant to the
dirty balancing logic.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/