Re: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:

> cpuset_write_dirty_map.htm
> 
>    In __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() you always call cpuset_update_dirty_nodes()
> but in __set_page_dirty_buffers() you call it only if page->mapping is still
> set after locking. Is there a reason for the difference? Also a question not
> about your patch: why do those functions call __mark_inode_dirty() even if the
> dirty page has been truncated and mapping == NULL?

If page->mapping has been cleared then the page was removed from the 
mapping. __mark_inode_dirty just dirties the inode. If a truncation occurs 
then the inode was modified.

> cpuset_write_throttle.htm
> 
>    I noticed that several lines have leading spaces. I didn't check if other
> patches have the problem too.

Maybe download the patches? How did those strange .htm endings get 
appended to the patches?

>    In get_dirty_limits(), when cpusets are configd you don't subtract highmen
> the same way that is done without cpusets. Is this intentional?

That is something in flux upstream. Linus changed it recently. Do it one 
way or the other.

>    It seems that dirty_exceeded is still a global punishment across cpusets.
> Should it be addressed?

Sure. It would be best if you could place that somehow in a cpuset.

-
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/