On Mar 23, 2007, at 20:45:21, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Mar 23, 2007, at 16:59:02, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Randy Dunlap wrote:
That makes a lot of sense to me. It gives us finer-grained
control without having to support fixed-point data. I've been
working on the fixed-point data patch, but I'm
On Mar 23, 2007, at 16:59:02, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Randy Dunlap wrote:
Hi,
That makes a lot of sense to me. It gives us finer-grained
control without having to support fixed-point data. I've been
working on the fixed-point data patch, but I'm going to give this
method some time also, to
Randy Dunlap wrote:
Hi,
That makes a lot of sense to me. It gives us finer-grained control
without having to support fixed-point data.
I've been working on the fixed-point data patch, but I'm going to give
this method some time also, to see how it looks in code (instead of just
thinking about
Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Mar 21, 2007, at 19:11:40, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:01:32 -0700 Randy Dunlap
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I prefer the fixed-point values for pressure and dirty* to having
duplicated entries for each of them. I'll proceed with that idea.
Problem is, if
On Mar 21, 2007, at 19:11:40, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:01:32 -0700 Randy Dunlap
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I prefer the fixed-point values for pressure and dirty* to having
duplicated entries for each of them. I'll proceed with that idea.
Problem is, if a read of /proc/sy
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:01:32 -0700
Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:22:33 -0700 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The we duplicate all the relevant /proc knobs:
> > >>
> > >> cat /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio
> > >> 30
> > >> cat /proc/sys/vm
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:22:33 -0700 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>
> >> The we duplicate all the relevant /proc knobs:
> >>
> >> cat /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio
> >> 30
> >> cat /proc/sys/vm/hires-dirty_ratio/
> >> 30
> >>
> >> Or we do something else ;)
> >
> > Sounds better.
Hi Randy,
On Monday 19 March 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Were there any patches written after this? If so, I missed them.
> If not, does this patch help any?
How is division by zero avoided? Maybe one can avoid setting it to zero.
Regards
Ingo Oeser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the li
Randy Dunlap wrote:
The we duplicate all the relevant /proc knobs:
cat /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio
30
cat /proc/sys/vm/hires-dirty_ratio/
30
Or we do something else ;)
Sounds better. I wasn't very keen on the userspace interface that this
exposed. Will look at those.
Okay... may be I c
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:27:40 -0700
Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+The default vfs_cache_divisor value is 100 (like percent). However, for
+extremely large systems where a value of vfs_cache_pressure of less than
+1 percent is desirable, using a larger vfs_cache_d
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:27:40 -0700
Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +The default vfs_cache_divisor value is 100 (like percent). However, for
> +extremely large systems where a value of vfs_cache_pressure of less than
> +1 percent is desirable, using a larger vfs_cache_divisor enables thi
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:18:39 -0800 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The most fundamental problem seems to be that I can't tell currnt Linux
> >>> kernels that the dcache/icache is precious, and that it's way too eager
> >>> to dump dcache and icache in favour of data bloc
12 matches
Mail list logo
