On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > > original scan targets introduces extra 4
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > > original scan targets introduces
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 08:57:54PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> > is able to avoid this si
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> > is able to avoid this situati
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
> it does not cha
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 17:47 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > break;
> > > >
> > > > if (nr_file > nr_anon) {
> > > > - unsigned long scan
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Chen Yucong wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > break;
> > >
> > > if (nr_file > nr_anon) {
> > > - unsigned long scan_target =
> > targets[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] +
> > >
> > -
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > break;
> >
> > if (nr_file > nr_anon) {
> > - unsigned long scan_target =
> targets[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] +
> >
> - targets[LRU_ACTIVE_ANON]
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:27:16 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
>
> > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> > is able to avoid this sit
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:27:16 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
> Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
> it does not c
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 08:10:51AM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 08:24 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > > original scan ta
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 08:24 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> > is able to a
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
>
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
it does not change the relative design idea.
ratio = original_nr_file / orig
14 matches
Mail list logo
