Aubrey Li wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Aubrey Li wrote:
>>> On 3/27/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Correct, shrink_page_list() is called from shrink_inactive_list() but
the above code is patched in shrink_active_li
On 3/27/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aubrey Li wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Correct, shrink_page_list() is called from shrink_inactive_list() but
>> the above code is patched in shrink_active_list(). The
>> 'force_reclaim_
Aubrey Li wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Correct, shrink_page_list() is called from shrink_inactive_list() but
>> the above code is patched in shrink_active_list(). The
>> 'force_reclaim_mapped' label is from function shrink_active_list() and
>> not in
On 3/27/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Correct, shrink_page_list() is called from shrink_inactive_list() but
the above code is patched in shrink_active_list(). The
'force_reclaim_mapped' label is from function shrink_active_list() and
not in shrink_page_list() as it may s
Aubrey Li wrote:
> On 3/6/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The reclaim code is similar to RSS memory controller. Scan control is
>> slightly different since we are targeting different type of pages.
>>
>> Additionally no mapped pages are touched when scanning for pagecac
On 3/6/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The reclaim code is similar to RSS memory controller. Scan control is
slightly different since we are targeting different type of pages.
Additionally no mapped pages are touched when scanning for pagecache pages.
RSS memory control
Shane wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 16:43 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
>> Please let me know if so see any problem running the patch. The
>> patches are against 2.6.20 only since dependent patches are at that level.
>
> My problem - a bad copy of the patch. It patches o.k.
> However,
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 16:43 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
>
> Please let me know if so see any problem running the patch. The
> patches are against 2.6.20 only since dependent patches are at that level.
My problem - a bad copy of the patch. It patches o.k.
However, it fails to compile vm
Kari Hurtta wrote:
> Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> in gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.mm:
>
>> --- linux-2.6.20.orig/mm/pagecache_acct.c
>> +++ linux-2.6.20/mm/pagecache_acct.c
>> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
>> #include
>> #include
>> #include
>> +#include
>>
>> /*
>>
Shane wrote:
> Anyone else have trouble fitting this patch ???.
> I see a later version today, but not markedly different from this
> mornings (Aus time). Initially I thought I had the first version, prior
> to Balbir's RSS controller V2 re-write, but apparently not.
> Kernel 2.6.20.1
Hi Shane,
Anyone else have trouble fitting this patch ???.
I see a later version today, but not markedly different from this
mornings (Aus time). Initially I thought I had the first version, prior
to Balbir's RSS controller V2 re-write, but apparently not.
Kernel 2.6.20.1
Had to toss it away so I could do s
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
in gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.mm:
> --- linux-2.6.20.orig/mm/pagecache_acct.c
> +++ linux-2.6.20/mm/pagecache_acct.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
>
> /*
> * Convert unit from pages to kilob
The reclaim code is similar to RSS memory controller. Scan control is
slightly different since we are targeting different type of pages.
Additionally no mapped pages are touched when scanning for pagecache pages.
RSS memory controller and pagecache controller share common code in reclaim
and he
13 matches
Mail list logo
