On Wed, 13 May 2020 15:16:53 +0530 Charan Teja Kalla
wrote:
> So, yes, this problem is got fixed with the changes made in this patch.
OK, thanks.
Could you please prepare a v2 with a changelog which includes the
additional info in your two replies?
On 5/12/2020 7:01 PM, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
>
> Thank you Andrew for the reply.
>
> On 5/12/2020 1:41 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 May 2020 19:10:08 +0530 Charan Teja Reddy
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Updating the zone watermarks by any means, like extra_free_kbytes,
>>> min_free_kbytes, w
Thank you Andrew for the reply.
On 5/12/2020 1:41 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 19:10:08 +0530 Charan Teja Reddy
> wrote:
>
>> Updating the zone watermarks by any means, like extra_free_kbytes,
>> min_free_kbytes, water_mark_scale_factor e.t.c, when watermark_boost is
>> set
On Mon, 11 May 2020 19:10:08 +0530 Charan Teja Reddy
wrote:
> Updating the zone watermarks by any means, like extra_free_kbytes,
> min_free_kbytes, water_mark_scale_factor e.t.c, when watermark_boost is
> set will result into the higher low and high watermarks than the user
> asks. This can be a
Updating the zone watermarks by any means, like extra_free_kbytes,
min_free_kbytes, water_mark_scale_factor e.t.c, when watermark_boost is
set will result into the higher low and high watermarks than the user
asks. This can be avoided by resetting the zone->watermark_boost to zero
early.
Signed-of
5 matches
Mail list logo