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.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]