On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:53:09PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello Marcelo,
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:04:13PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, that was SuSE not mainline ?
>
> yep.
>
> > Do we really want to limit dirty cache to low mem on HIGHIO capable
> >
Hello Marcelo,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:04:13PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Out of curiosity, that was SuSE not mainline ?
yep.
> Do we really want to limit dirty cache to low mem on HIGHIO capable
> machines? I'm afraid doing so might hurt performance on such systems.
>
> I think it
Hi Andrea!
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:10:35AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello Marcelo,
>
> I've got a fix for you on 2.4. I got reports of stalls with heavy writes
> on 2.4.
Out of curiosity, that was SuSE not mainline ?
> There was a mistake in nr_free_buffer_pages. That function is
Hi Andrea!
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:10:35AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hello Marcelo,
I've got a fix for you on 2.4. I got reports of stalls with heavy writes
on 2.4.
Out of curiosity, that was SuSE not mainline ?
There was a mistake in nr_free_buffer_pages. That function is
Hello Marcelo,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:04:13PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Out of curiosity, that was SuSE not mainline ?
yep.
Do we really want to limit dirty cache to low mem on HIGHIO capable
machines? I'm afraid doing so might hurt performance on such systems.
I think it might
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:53:09PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hello Marcelo,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:04:13PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Out of curiosity, that was SuSE not mainline ?
yep.
Do we really want to limit dirty cache to low mem on HIGHIO capable
machines? I'm
Hello Marcelo,
I've got a fix for you on 2.4. I got reports of stalls with heavy writes
on 2.4. There was a mistake in nr_free_buffer_pages. That function is
definitely meant _not_ to take highmem into account (dirty cache cannot
spread over highmem in 2.4 [even when on top of fs]). For unknown
Hello Marcelo,
I've got a fix for you on 2.4. I got reports of stalls with heavy writes
on 2.4. There was a mistake in nr_free_buffer_pages. That function is
definitely meant _not_ to take highmem into account (dirty cache cannot
spread over highmem in 2.4 [even when on top of fs]). For unknown
8 matches
Mail list logo