On 03/09/2016 12:59 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 02/23/2016 04:04 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> Direct reclaim obeys cpusets but misses the cpusets_enabled() check.
>>> The overhead is unlikely to be measurable in the direct reclaim
>>>
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/23/2016 04:04 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Direct reclaim obeys cpusets but misses the cpusets_enabled() check.
> > The overhead is unlikely to be measurable in the direct reclaim
> > path which is expensive but there is no harm
On 02/23/2016 04:04 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Direct reclaim obeys cpusets but misses the cpusets_enabled() check.
> The overhead is unlikely to be measurable in the direct reclaim
> path which is expensive but there is no harm is doing it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 03:04:25PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Direct reclaim obeys cpusets but misses the cpusets_enabled() check.
> The overhead is unlikely to be measurable in the direct reclaim
> path which is expensive but there is no harm is doing it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Acked-by:
Direct reclaim obeys cpusets but misses the cpusets_enabled() check.
The overhead is unlikely to be measurable in the direct reclaim
path which is expensive but there is no harm is doing it.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
---
mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --g
Direct reclaim obeys cpusets but misses the cpusets_enabled() check.
The overhead is unlikely to be measurable in the direct reclaim
path which is expensive but there is no harm is doing it.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
---
mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --g
6 matches
Mail list logo