On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2001 12:05, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > It _juuust_ so happens that I was tinkering... what do you think of
> > something like the below? (and boy do I ever wonder what a certain
> > box doing slrn stuff thinks of it.. hint hint;)
>
>
On Sunday 17 June 2001 12:05, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> It _juuust_ so happens that I was tinkering... what do you think of
> something like the below? (and boy do I ever wonder what a certain
> box doing slrn stuff thinks of it.. hint hint;)
It's too subtle for me ;-) (Not shy about sying that b
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:05:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > It _juuust_ so happens that I was tinkering... what do you think of
> > something like the below? (and boy do I ever wonder what a certain
> > box doing slrn stuff thinks of it.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:05:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> It _juuust_ so happens that I was tinkering... what do you think of
> something like the below? (and boy do I ever wonder what a certain
> box doing slrn stuff thinks of it.. hint hint;)
>
I'm sorry to say this box doesn't real
On Saturday 16 June 2001 23:54, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Does the patch below do anything good for your laptop? ;)
> >
> > I'll wait for the next one ;-)
>
> OK, here's one which isn't reversed and should work ;))
>
> --- fs/buffer.c.orig Sat Jun 16
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2001 23:06, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > As a side note, the good old multisecond delay before bdflush kicks in
> > > doesn't really make a lot of sense - when bandwidth is available the
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Does the patch below do anything good for your laptop? ;)
>
> I'll wait for the next one ;-)
OK, here's one which isn't reversed and should work ;))
--- fs/buffer.c.origSat Jun 16 18:05:29 2001
+++ fs/buffer.c Sat Jun 16 18:05:15 2001
@@ -255
On Saturday 16 June 2001 23:06, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > As a side note, the good old multisecond delay before bdflush kicks in
> > doesn't really make a lot of sense - when bandwidth is available the
> > filesystem-initiated writeouts should happen rig
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
Oops, I did something stupid and the patch is reversed ;)
> --- buffer.c.orig Sat Jun 16 18:05:15 2001
> +++ buffer.c Sat Jun 16 18:05:29 2001
> @@ -2550,8 +2550,7 @@
> if the current bh is not yet timed out,
>
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> In other words, any episode of pageouts is followed immediately by a
> short episode of preemptive cleaning.
linux/mm/vmscan.c::page_launder(), around line 666:
/* Let bdflush take care of the rest. */
wakeup_bdflush(0
On Friday 15 June 2001 17:23, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Roger> It does if you are running on a laptop. Then you do not want
> > Roger> the pages go out all the time. Disk has gone too sleep, needs
> > Roger> to start to write a few pages, stays idle for a while, goes to
> > Roger> sleep, a f
Hi!
> Roger> It does if you are running on a laptop. Then you do not want
> Roger> the pages go out all the time. Disk has gone too sleep, needs
> Roger> to start to write a few pages, stays idle for a while, goes to
> Roger> sleep, a few more pages, ...
>
> That could be handled by a metric whi
12 matches
Mail list logo
