Re: [PATCH 11/18] block: add bdi flag to indicate risk of io queueunderrun

[Wu Fengguang]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 10:22:48PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 09:53 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c      2011-08-31 14:40:58.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -1067,6 +1067,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> >                                      nr_dirty, bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty,
> >                                      start_time);
> >  
> > +               if (unlikely(!dirty_exceeded && bdi_async_underrun(bdi)))
> > +                       break;
> > +
> >                 dirty_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit;
> >                 pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh,
> >                                                background_thresh, nr_dirty,
> 
> So dirty_exceeded looks like:
> 
> 
> 1109                 dirty_exceeded = (bdi_dirty > bdi_thresh) ||
> 1110                                   (nr_dirty > dirty_thresh);
> 
> Would it make sense to write it as:
> 
> 	if (nr_dirty > dirty_thresh || 
> 	    (nr_dirty > freerun && bdi_dirty > bdi_thresh))
> 		dirty_exceeded = 1;
> 
> So that we don't actually throttle bdi thingies when we're still in the
> freerun area?

Sounds not necessary -- (nr_dirty > freerun) is implicitly true
because there is a big break early in the loop:

        if (nr_dirty > freerun)
                break;

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/