Re: [patch 1/19] writeback tunables

Oliver Xymoron (oxymoron@waste.org)
Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:30:27 -0500 (CDT)


On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Russell King wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 12:33:18PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> > ...
> > > > +int dirty_expire_centisecs = 30 * 100;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Blind guess - didn't the 100 wan't to be HZ?!
> >
> > The units are centiseconds (as the name suggests). 5 * 100 centiseconds = 5
> > seconds, so the dirty writeback timeout is 5 seconds. Check the code a
> > little further and you'll see HZ gets factored into them on use.
> >
>
> Yup. Sorry about the "_centisecs" thing. That's a bit anal, but
> I tend to think that it's best to be really explicit about the
> units, make it a bit easier to use. I don't know how many times
> I've had to peer in fs/buffer.c to remember what those dang numbers do.
>
> Possibly, "seconds" may be sufficiently high resolution for
> these things. But I wasn't sure - maybe someone wants to
> run the kupdate function five times per second? Dunno.

Possibly, we should just concede that anywhere where we're measuring time,
we'll eventually want to use a non-integer external representation just so
we're not building in obsolescense. With a couple simple wrappers like
atoif(".667",HZ)=67, this could be pretty painless.

-- 
 "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."

- 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/