On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote: > cpuset_write_dirty_map.htm > > In __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() you always call cpuset_update_dirty_nodes() > but in __set_page_dirty_buffers() you call it only if page->mapping is still > set after locking. Is there a reason for the difference? Also a question not > about your patch: why do those functions call __mark_inode_dirty() even if the > dirty page has been truncated and mapping == NULL?
If page->mapping has been cleared then the page was removed from the mapping. __mark_inode_dirty just dirties the inode. If a truncation occurs then the inode was modified. > cpuset_write_throttle.htm > > I noticed that several lines have leading spaces. I didn't check if other > patches have the problem too. Maybe download the patches? How did those strange .htm endings get appended to the patches? > In get_dirty_limits(), when cpusets are configd you don't subtract highmen > the same way that is done without cpusets. Is this intentional? That is something in flux upstream. Linus changed it recently. Do it one way or the other. > It seems that dirty_exceeded is still a global punishment across cpusets. > Should it be addressed? Sure. It would be best if you could place that somehow in a cpuset. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/