On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 09:01, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Regarding the comment, I'm frankly not certain how strictlimit solved
> NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP issue because NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP was never included in any
> computations there AFAICS. It just helped to limit amount of outstanding
> dirty pages for FUSE mappings and thus indirectly limited the scope of
> NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP issue. Anyway I think the sentence is obsolete now and
> deleting it is indeed the right solution because FUSE writeback is now
> properly accounted in the dirty limit.
The question is how much fuse can overrun the dirty limit without strictlimit.
AFAIU the strictlimit feature was added because temp pages were not
accounted as "dirty" as opposed to writeback pages which were.
Header of commit 5a53748568f7 ("mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit
feature") has more details. But I don't fully understand all of that,
and strictlimit may still be useful.
Thanks,
Miklos
