On Mon 16-07-12 01:10:47, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 11-07-12 18:57:43, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > I mentioned in Johannes's [03/11] thread a couple of days ago, that
> > > I was having a problem with your wait_on_page_writeback() in mmotm.
> >
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 12-07-12 15:42:53, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > I wasn't planning on 3.5, given the way it's been churning around.
> >
> > I don't know if you had been intending to send it in for 3.5 earlier;
> >
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 11-07-12 18:57:43, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > I mentioned in Johannes's [03/11] thread a couple of days ago, that
> > I was having a problem with your wait_on_page_writeback() in mmotm.
> >
> > It turns out that your original patch was fine, but
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 11-07-12 18:57:43, Hugh Dickins wrote:
I mentioned in Johannes's [03/11] thread a couple of days ago, that
I was having a problem with your wait_on_page_writeback() in mmotm.
It turns out that your original patch was fine, but you let
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 12-07-12 15:42:53, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
I wasn't planning on 3.5, given the way it's been churning around.
I don't know if you had been intending to send it in for 3.5 earlier;
but I'm sorry
On Mon 16-07-12 01:10:47, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 11-07-12 18:57:43, Hugh Dickins wrote:
I mentioned in Johannes's [03/11] thread a couple of days ago, that
I was having a problem with your wait_on_page_writeback() in mmotm.
It turns
On Thu 12-07-12 15:42:53, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:05:01 +0200
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > When we are back to the patch. Is it going into 3.5? I hope so and I
> > > think it is really worth stable as well. Andrew?
> >
> >
On Thu 12-07-12 15:42:53, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:05:01 +0200
Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
When we are back to the patch. Is it going into 3.5? I hope so and I
think it is really worth stable as well. Andrew?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:05:01 +0200
> Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > When we are back to the patch. Is it going into 3.5? I hope so and I
> > think it is really worth stable as well. Andrew?
>
> What patch. "memcg: prevent OOM with too many dirty pages"?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:05:01 +0200
Michal Hocko wrote:
> When we are back to the patch. Is it going into 3.5? I hope so and I
> think it is really worth stable as well. Andrew?
What patch. "memcg: prevent OOM with too many dirty pages"?
I wasn't planning on 3.5, given the way it's been
On Wed 11-07-12 18:57:43, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Hi Michal,
Hi,
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > here is an updated version if it is easier for you to drop the previous
> > one.
> > changes since v1
> > * added Mel's Reviewed-by
> > * updated changelog as per
On Wed 11-07-12 18:57:43, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Hi Michal,
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
Hi Andrew,
here is an updated version if it is easier for you to drop the previous
one.
changes since v1
* added Mel's Reviewed-by
* updated changelog as per Andrew
* updated
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:05:01 +0200
Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
When we are back to the patch. Is it going into 3.5? I hope so and I
think it is really worth stable as well. Andrew?
What patch. memcg: prevent OOM with too many dirty pages?
I wasn't planning on 3.5, given the way it's
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:05:01 +0200
Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
When we are back to the patch. Is it going into 3.5? I hope so and I
think it is really worth stable as well. Andrew?
What patch. memcg: prevent OOM with too many dirty
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> wrote:
>
> > --- 3.5-rc6-mm1/mm/vmscan.c 2012-07-11 14:42:13.668335884 -0700
> > +++ linux/mm/vmscan.c 2012-07-11 16:01:20.712814127 -0700
> > @@ -726,7 +726,8 @@ static unsigned long
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins wrote:
> --- 3.5-rc6-mm1/mm/vmscan.c 2012-07-11 14:42:13.668335884 -0700
> +++ linux/mm/vmscan.c 2012-07-11 16:01:20.712814127 -0700
> @@ -726,7 +726,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(st
>* writeback from
Hi Michal,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> here is an updated version if it is easier for you to drop the previous
> one.
> changes since v1
> * added Mel's Reviewed-by
> * updated changelog as per Andrew
> * updated the condition to be optimized for no-memcg case
I
Hi Michal,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
Hi Andrew,
here is an updated version if it is easier for you to drop the previous
one.
changes since v1
* added Mel's Reviewed-by
* updated changelog as per Andrew
* updated the condition to be optimized for no-memcg case
I mentioned in
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com wrote:
--- 3.5-rc6-mm1/mm/vmscan.c 2012-07-11 14:42:13.668335884 -0700
+++ linux/mm/vmscan.c 2012-07-11 16:01:20.712814127 -0700
@@ -726,7 +726,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(st
*
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
wrote:
--- 3.5-rc6-mm1/mm/vmscan.c 2012-07-11 14:42:13.668335884 -0700
+++ linux/mm/vmscan.c 2012-07-11 16:01:20.712814127 -0700
@@ -726,7 +726,8 @@ static unsigned
20 matches
Mail list logo
