On Tue, 2018-10-23 at 10:30 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> . snip
> Here is updated patch without the drop_caches change and updated
> fixes tag.
>
> From: Mike Kravetz
>
> hugetlbfs: dirty pages as they are added to pagecache
>
> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page
On Tue, 2018-10-23 at 10:30 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> . snip
> Here is updated patch without the drop_caches change and updated
> fixes tag.
>
> From: Mike Kravetz
>
> hugetlbfs: dirty pages as they are added to pagecache
>
> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page
On Tue 23-10-18 10:30:44, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 10/23/18 12:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 17-10-18 21:10:22, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
> >> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
> >>
On Tue 23-10-18 10:30:44, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 10/23/18 12:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 17-10-18 21:10:22, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
> >> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
> >>
On 10/23/18 12:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 17-10-18 21:10:22, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
>> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
>> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
>> file
On 10/23/18 12:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 17-10-18 21:10:22, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
>> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
>> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
>> file
On Wed 17-10-18 21:10:22, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
> file pagecaches. When non-hugetlbfs explicit code removes
On Wed 17-10-18 21:10:22, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
> file pagecaches. When non-hugetlbfs explicit code removes
On 10/18/18 6:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:46:21 -0400 Andrea Arcangeli
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:16:40PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> I was not sure about this, and expected someone could come up with
>>> something better. It just seems there are
On 10/18/18 6:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:46:21 -0400 Andrea Arcangeli
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:16:40PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> I was not sure about this, and expected someone could come up with
>>> something better. It just seems there are
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:46:21 -0400 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:16:40PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > I was not sure about this, and expected someone could come up with
> > something better. It just seems there are filesystems like huegtlbfs,
> > where it makes no sense
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:46:21 -0400 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:16:40PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > I was not sure about this, and expected someone could come up with
> > something better. It just seems there are filesystems like huegtlbfs,
> > where it makes no sense
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:16:40PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> I was not sure about this, and expected someone could come up with
> something better. It just seems there are filesystems like huegtlbfs,
> where it makes no sense wasting cycles traversing the filesystem. So,
> let's not even try.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:16:40PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> I was not sure about this, and expected someone could come up with
> something better. It just seems there are filesystems like huegtlbfs,
> where it makes no sense wasting cycles traversing the filesystem. So,
> let's not even try.
On 10/18/18 4:08 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:10:22 -0700 Mike Kravetz
> wrote:
>
>> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
>> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
>> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
On 10/18/18 4:08 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:10:22 -0700 Mike Kravetz
> wrote:
>
>> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
>> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
>> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:10:22 -0700 Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
> file pagecaches. When non-hugetlbfs explicit
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:10:22 -0700 Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
> counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
> file pagecaches. When non-hugetlbfs explicit
Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
file pagecaches. When non-hugetlbfs explicit code removes the
pages, the appropriate accounting is not performed.
Some test systems were experiencing negative huge page reserve
counts and incorrect file block counts. This was traced to
/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches removing clean pages from hugetlbfs
file pagecaches. When non-hugetlbfs explicit code removes the
pages, the appropriate accounting is not performed.
20 matches
Mail list logo
