From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:18:03 +0100 (CET) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? In-Reply-To: <14430.51369.57387.224846@dukat.scot.redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: Chris Mason , reiserfs@devlinux.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds List-ID: On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > refile_buffer() checks in buffer.c. Ideally there should be a > system-wide upper bound on dirty data: if each different filesystem > starts to throttle writes at 50% of physical memory then you only > need two different filesystems to overcommit your memory badly. If all FSes shares the dirty list of buffer.c that's not true. All normal filesystems are using the mark_buffer_dirty() in buffer.c so currently the 40% setting of bdflush is a system-wide number and not a per-fs number. > same time. Making the refile_buffer() checks honour that global > threshold would be trivial. If both ext3 and reiserfs are using refile_buffer and both are using balance_dirty in the right places as Linus wants, all seems just fine to me. I disagree since 2.3.10 (or similar) about mark_buffer_dirty not including the balance_dirty() check (and I just provided patches to fix that some month ago IIRC). Last time I checked ext2 was harmed by this, and we'll have to add the proper balance_dirty() in the ext2 mknod path and check the rest. I completly agree to change mark_buffer_dirty() to call balance_dirty() before returning. But if you add the balance_dirty() calls all over the right places all should be _just_ fine as far I can tell. Andrea -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.nl.linux.org/Linux-MM/