Andrew Morton wrote: >Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I suspect that when someone did the search and replace when creating >>balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr they failed to read the code and >>realize this code path was already effectively ratelimited. The result >>is they made it excessively infrequent (every 1MB if ratelimit is 8) in >>its calling balance_dirty_pages. >> >> > >?? There's been no change to balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(). I merely >widened the interface a bit: introduced the new >balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() and did > > > So we were not originally using balance_dirty() in place of balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited?
At any rate, the change is obviously better, I think we all agree on that.
