[PATCH v5 02/16] mm: Move updates of dirty_exceeded into one place

[Stefan Roesch <shr@fb.com>]

From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Transition of wb->dirty_exceeded from 0 to 1 happens before we go to
sleep in balance_dirty_pages() while transition from 1 to 0 happens when
exiting from balance_dirty_pages(), possibly based on old values. This
does not make a lot of sense since wb->dirty_exceeded should simply
reflect whether wb is over dirty limit and so we should ratelimit
entering to balance_dirty_pages() less. Move the two updates together.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roesch <shr@fb.com>
---
 mm/page-writeback.c | 7 ++-----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
index 8e5e003f0093..89dcc7d8395a 100644
--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -1720,8 +1720,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
 				sdtc = mdtc;
 		}
 
-		if (dirty_exceeded && !wb->dirty_exceeded)
-			wb->dirty_exceeded = 1;
+		if (dirty_exceeded != wb->dirty_exceeded)
+			wb->dirty_exceeded = dirty_exceeded;
 
 		if (time_is_before_jiffies(READ_ONCE(wb->bw_time_stamp) +
 					   BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
@@ -1825,9 +1825,6 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
 		if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
 			break;
 	}
-
-	if (!dirty_exceeded && wb->dirty_exceeded)
-		wb->dirty_exceeded = 0;
 }
 
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bdp_ratelimits);
-- 
2.30.2