Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:30:27 -0500 (CDT) | From | Oliver Xymoron <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/19] writeback tunables |
| |
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/
| |