On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:50:16 +0900
Tomoki Sekiyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Kamezawa-san,
>
> thanks for your reply.
>
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > Interesting, but how about adjust this parameter like below instead of
> > adding new control knob ?(this kind of knob is not easy to use.)
> >
> > ==
> > struct writeback_control wbc = {
> > .bdi = bdi,
> > .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_NONE,
> > .older_than_this = NULL,
> > .nr_to_write = 0,
> > .range_cyclic = 1,
> > };
> > <snip>
> > if (nr_reclaimable) {
> > /* Just do what I can do */
> > dirty_pages_on_device =
> > count_dirty_pages_on_device_limited(bdi, writechunk);
> > wbc.nr_to_write = dirty_pages_on_device.
> > writeback_inodes(&wbc);
> >
> > ==
> >
> > count_dirty_pages_on_device_limited(bdi, writechunk) above returns
> > dirty pages on bdi. if # of dirty_pages on bdi is larger than writechunk,
> > just returns writechunk.
>
>
> I think that way is not enough to control the total amount of
> Dirty+Writeback.
>
> In that way, while writeback_inodes() scans for dirty pages and writes
> them back, the caller will be blocked only if the length of the write-
> requests queue is longer than nr_requests.
What nr_request means ?
But Ok, maybe I'm not understanding. What I want to ask you is do
per-device-write-throttling rather than adding a new parameter.
Bye.
-Kame
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
