Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> This may be a leftover from earlier times when the logic was different in
> throttle vm writeout?
Sorry -- my merge error when looking at an earlier kernel, no issue
with mainline or -mm.
-- Ethan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsu
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
> Christoph -- I have a question about one part of the patches. In
> throttle_vm_writeout() you added a clause that checks for __GFP_FS |
> __GFP_IO and if they're not both set it calls blk_congestion_wait()
> immediately and then returns, no change
Christoph -- I have a question about one part of the patches. In
throttle_vm_writeout() you added a clause that checks for __GFP_FS |
__GFP_IO and if they're not both set it calls blk_congestion_wait()
immediately and then returns, no change for looping. Two questions:
1. This seems like a
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
> > I hope you will keep on updating the patchset and posting it against
> > current mm?
> >
>
> I have no new changes, but I can update it against the current mm. Or
> did the per-bdi throttling change get taken by Andrew?
Not that I am aware o
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
>
>> I looked over it at one point. Most of the code doesn't conflict, but I
>> believe that the code path which calculates the dirty limits will need
>> some merging. Doable but non-trivial.
>> -- Ethan
>
> I hope yo
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
> I looked over it at one point. Most of the code doesn't conflict, but I
> believe that the code path which calculates the dirty limits will need
> some merging. Doable but non-trivial.
> -- Ethan
I hope you will keep on updating the patchse
On (27/06/07 05:44), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > I'm more concerned about all of Mel's code in -mm actually. I don't recall
> > anyone doing a full review recently and I'm still not sure that this is the
> > overall direction in which we wi
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> One open question is the interaction between these changes and with Peter's
> per-device-dirty-throttling changes. They also are in my queue somewhere.
I looked over it at one point. Most of the code doesn't conflict, but I
believe that the code path which calcu
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'm more concerned about all of Mel's code in -mm actually. I don't recall
> anyone doing a full review recently and I'm still not sure that this is the
> overall direction in which we wish to go. Last time I asked this everyone
> seemed a bit waffly a
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Is in my queue somewhere. Could be that by the time I get to it it will
> > need refreshing (again), we'll see.
> >
> > One open question is the interaction b
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Is in my queue somewhere. Could be that by the time I get to it it will
> need refreshing (again), we'll see.
>
> One open question is the interaction between these changes and with Peter's
> per-device-dirty-throttling changes. They also are in my qu
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
>
> > The effect of this patchset is straightforward. Without it there are
> > long hangs between appearances of the date. With it the dates are all 5
> > (or som
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
> The effect of this patchset is straightforward. Without it there are
> long hangs between appearances of the date. With it the dates are all 5
> (or sometimes 6) seconds apart.
>
> I also added printks to the kernel to verify that, without
Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> What testing was done? Would you include the results of tests in your next
> post?
Sorry for the delay in responding -- I was chasing phantom failures.
I created a stress test which involved using cpusets and mems_allowed
to split memory so that all
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
> > You should preserve my Signed-off-by: since I wrote most of this. Is there
> > a changelog?
> >
>
> I wasn't sure of the etiquette -- I'd thought that by saying you had
> signed it off that meant you were accepting my modifications, and didn't
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
>
>> The dirty map is only cleared (or freed) when the inode is cleared.
>> At that point no pages are attached to the inode anymore and therefore it can
>> be done without any locking. The dirty map therefore records all nodes
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
> The dirty map is only cleared (or freed) when the inode is cleared.
> At that point no pages are attached to the inode anymore and therefore it can
> be done without any locking. The dirty map therefore records all nodes that
> have been used for dirty
17 matches
Mail list logo
