Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: let the bdi_writeout fraction respond more quickly

From: Jens Axboe
Date: Thu Jun 17 2010 - 07:41:24 EST


On 2010-06-17 13:39, Richard Kennedy wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 20:54 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 15:44 +0100, Richard Kennedy wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
>>>> index 2fdda90..315dd04 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
>>>> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int calc_period_shift(void)
>>>> else
>>>> dirty_total = (vm_dirty_ratio * determine_dirtyable_memory()) /
>>>> 100;
>>>> - return 2 + ilog2(dirty_total - 1);
>>>> + return ilog2(dirty_total - 1) - 4;
>>>> }
>>
>> IIRC I suggested similar things in the past and all we needed to do was
>> find people doing the measurements on different bits of hardware or so..
>>
>> I don't have any problems with the approach, all we need to make sure is
>> that we never return 0 or a negative number (possibly ensure a minimum
>> positive shift value).
>
> Yep that sounds reasonable. would minimum shift of 4 be ok ?
>
> something like
>
> max ( (ilog2(dirty_total - 1)- 4) , 4);
>
> Unfortunately volunteers don't seem to be leaping out of the woodwork,
> maybe Andrew could be persuaded to try this in his tree for a while and
> see if any one squeaks ?

I'm pretty sure that most volunteers are curious what to actually test,
so they shy away from it. If you added a good explanation of an easy way
to test the before and after, then it would be more approachable.

I'll give it a spin here.

--
Jens Axboe

--
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/