On Saturday 29 September 2007 03:57, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Isn't the actual instrumentation present in the VM subsystem consisting
> mostly of event counters ? This kind of profiling provides limited help in
> following specific delays in the kernel. Martin Bligh's paper "Linux
> Kernel Debug
Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [...]
>> > I totally agree with Ingo here. Having a basic instrumentation that is
>> > enabled by default will help to identify code paths causing unexpected
>> > delays in the kernel. [...]
>
>> It is. See: CONFIG_VM_EVENT_COUNTERS and all the oth
* Nick Piggin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Saturday 29 September 2007 02:23, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > This is a pretty major bugfix.
> > > >
> > > > GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS callers should have bee
On Saturday 29 September 2007 02:23, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This is a pretty major bugfix.
> > >
> > > GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS callers should have been spending really large
> > > amounts of time stuck i
* Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is a pretty major bugfix.
> >
> > GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS callers should have been spending really large
> > amounts of time stuck in that sleep.
> >
> > I wonder why nobody noticed this happening.
On Friday 28 September 2007 18:02, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a pretty major bugfix.
> >
> > GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS callers should have been spending really large
> > amounts of time stuck in that sleep.
> >
> > I wonder why nobody noticed this happen
On Thursday 27 September 2007 11:50, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> We don't want to introduce pointless delays in throttle_vm_writeout()
> when the writeback limits are not yet exceeded, do we?
I don't think so (ie. I agree with you).
IIRC, Marcelo initially did the throttle_vm_writeout?
> Cc: Nick Piggi
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a pretty major bugfix.
>
> GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS callers should have been spending really large
> amounts of time stuck in that sleep.
>
> I wonder why nobody noticed this happening. Either a) it turns out
> that kswapd is doing a good job
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:16:10AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:50:16 +0800
> Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We don't want to introduce pointless delays in throttle_vm_writeout()
> > when the writeback limits are not yet exceeded, do we?
>
> Good catch.
Than
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:50:16 +0800
Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't want to introduce pointless delays in throttle_vm_writeout()
> when the writeback limits are not yet exceeded, do we?
>
> Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Kumar
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:50:16 +0800
Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't want to introduce pointless delays in throttle_vm_writeout()
> when the writeback limits are not yet exceeded, do we?
Good catch.
> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <[E
We don't want to introduce pointless delays in throttle_vm_writeout()
when the writeback limits are not yet exceeded, do we?
Cc: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTEC
12 matches
Mail list logo
