On Fri 10-02-17 14:15:20, vinayak menon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > I have already said I will _not_ NAK the patch but we need a much better
> > description and justification why the older behavior was better to
> > consider this a regression before this
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 09-02-17 17:29:37, Vinayak Menon wrote:
>> During global reclaim, the nr_reclaimed passed to vmpressure includes the
>> pages reclaimed from slab. But the corresponding scanned slab pages is
>> not passed. There is an impact to the vmpr
On Thu 09-02-17 17:29:37, Vinayak Menon wrote:
> During global reclaim, the nr_reclaimed passed to vmpressure includes the
> pages reclaimed from slab. But the corresponding scanned slab pages is
> not passed. There is an impact to the vmpressure values because of this.
> While moving from kernel
During global reclaim, the nr_reclaimed passed to vmpressure includes the
pages reclaimed from slab. But the corresponding scanned slab pages is
not passed. There is an impact to the vmpressure values because of this.
While moving from kernel version 3.18 to 4.4, a difference is seen
in the vmpres
4 matches
Mail list logo
