On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> So despite my earlier reluctance, please take this as an Ack on that
> one too (I was testing them together): it'll be odd if one of them goes
> to stable and the other not, but we can sort that out with GregKH later.
Yes, all this c
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:29 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> NR_MLOCK is only accounted in single page units: there's no logic to
> handle transparent hugepages. This patch checks the appropriate number
> of pages to adjust the statistics by so that the correct amount of memory
> is reflected.
>
> Re
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 07:29:58PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> NR_MLOCK is only accounted in single page units: there's no logic to
> handle transparent hugepages. This patch checks the appropriate number
> of pages to adjust the statistics by so that the correct amount of memory
> is reflected
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, David Rientjes wrote:
> NR_MLOCK is only accounted in single page units: there's no logic to
> handle transparent hugepages. This patch checks the appropriate number
> of pages to adjust the statistics by so that the correct amount of memory
> is reflected.
>
> Currently:
>
NR_MLOCK is only accounted in single page units: there's no logic to
handle transparent hugepages. This patch checks the appropriate number
of pages to adjust the statistics by so that the correct amount of memory
is reflected.
Currently:
$ grep Mlocked /proc/meminfo
5 matches
Mail list logo