Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755023AbZIVIYh (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:24:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751402AbZIVIYf (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:24:35 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:34586 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751084AbZIVIYf (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:24:35 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,430,1249282800"; d="scan'208";a="190221681" Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:24:27 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: "Li, Shaohua" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "richard@rsk.demon.co.uk" , "jens.axboe@oracle.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Chris Mason Subject: Re: regression in page writeback Message-ID: <20090922082427.GA24888@localhost> References: <20090922054913.GA27260@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <1253601612.8439.274.camel@twins> <20090922080505.GB9192@localhost> <1253606965.8439.281.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1253606965.8439.281.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1488 Lines: 34 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 04:09:25PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 16:05 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > I'm not sure how this patch stopped the "overshooting" behavior. > > Maybe it managed to not start the background pdflush, or the started > > pdflush thread exited because it found writeback is in progress by > > someone else? > > > > - if (bdi_nr_reclaimable) { > > + if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) { > > The idea is that we shouldn't move more pages from dirty -> writeback > when there's not actually that much dirty left. IMHO this makes little sense given that pdflush will move all dirty pages anyway. pdflush should already be started to do background writeback before the process is throttled, and it is designed to sync all current dirty pages as quick as possible and as much as possible. > Now, I'm not sure about the > bdi_thresh part, I've suggested to maybe > use bdi_thresh/2 a few times, but it generally didn't seem to make much > of a difference. One possible difference is, the process may end up waiting longer time in order to sync write_chunk pages and quit the throttle. This could hurt the responsiveness of the throttled process. Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/