On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:02:24AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems
> > > so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since,
> > > a retest is
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:02:24AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems
> > > so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since,
> > > a retest is
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems
> > so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since,
> > a retest is desirable. I've posted the current version of the series but
> > I'll
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems
> > so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since,
> > a retest is desirable. I've posted the current version of the series but
> > I'll
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:52:03AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:27:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > .
> > > This series is not without its hazards. There are at least three areas
> > > that I'm concerned with even though I could not reproduce any problems in
> > >
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:52:03AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:27:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > .
> > > This series is not without its hazards. There are at least three areas
> > > that I'm concerned with even though I could not reproduce any problems in
> > >
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:27:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> .
> > This series is not without its hazards. There are at least three areas
> > that I'm concerned with even though I could not reproduce any problems in
> > that area.
> >
> > 1. Reclaim/compaction is going to be affected
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:27:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> .
> > This series is not without its hazards. There are at least three areas
> > that I'm concerned with even though I could not reproduce any problems in
> > that area.
> >
> > 1. Reclaim/compaction is going to be affected
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 04:37:15PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
> because it was required by should_reclaim_retry. The last patch in the
> series removes the double accounting. It's not integrated with the series
> as reviewers
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 04:37:15PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
> because it was required by should_reclaim_retry. The last patch in the
> series removes the double accounting. It's not integrated with the series
> as reviewers
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:55:09AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:04:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > How big ratio between highmem:lowmem do you think a problem?
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's a "how long is a piece of string" type question. The ratio does
> > > not
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:55:09AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:04:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > How big ratio between highmem:lowmem do you think a problem?
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's a "how long is a piece of string" type question. The ratio does
> > > not
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:04:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > How big ratio between highmem:lowmem do you think a problem?
> > >
> >
> > That's a "how long is a piece of string" type question. The ratio does
> > not matter as much as whether the workload is both under memory pressure
> >
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:04:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > How big ratio between highmem:lowmem do you think a problem?
> > >
> >
> > That's a "how long is a piece of string" type question. The ratio does
> > not matter as much as whether the workload is both under memory pressure
> >
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:34:05AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:37:03AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > The reason we have zone-based reclaim is that we used to have
> > > large highmem zones in common configurations and it was necessary
> > > to quickly find ZONE_NORMAL
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:34:05AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:37:03AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > The reason we have zone-based reclaim is that we used to have
> > > large highmem zones in common configurations and it was necessary
> > > to quickly find ZONE_NORMAL
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:37:03AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > The reason we have zone-based reclaim is that we used to have
> > large highmem zones in common configurations and it was necessary
> > to quickly find ZONE_NORMAL pages for reclaim. Today, this is much
> > less of a concern as
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:37:03AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > The reason we have zone-based reclaim is that we used to have
> > large highmem zones in common configurations and it was necessary
> > to quickly find ZONE_NORMAL pages for reclaim. Today, this is much
> > less of a concern as
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:01:08PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> (Sorry for the resend, I accidentally sent the branch that still had the
> Signed-off-by's from mmotm still applied which is incorrect.)
>
> Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
> because it was
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:01:08PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> (Sorry for the resend, I accidentally sent the branch that still had the
> Signed-off-by's from mmotm still applied which is incorrect.)
>
> Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
> because it was
(Sorry for the resend, I accidentally sent the branch that still had the
Signed-off-by's from mmotm still applied which is incorrect.)
Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
because it was required by should_reclaim_retry. The last patch in the
series removes the
(Sorry for the resend, I accidentally sent the branch that still had the
Signed-off-by's from mmotm still applied which is incorrect.)
Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
because it was required by should_reclaim_retry. The last patch in the
series removes the
Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
because it was required by should_reclaim_retry. The last patch in the
series removes the double accounting. It's not integrated with the series
as reviewers may not like the solution. If not, it can be safely dropped
without a
Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
because it was required by should_reclaim_retry. The last patch in the
series removes the double accounting. It's not integrated with the series
as reviewers may not like the solution. If not, it can be safely dropped
without a
24 matches
Mail list logo
