On Mon 12-05-14 11:04:37, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2014 17:05:01 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On 04/22/2014 10:40 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > PF_LESS_THROTTLE has a very specific use case: to avoid deadlocks
> > > and live-locks while writing to the page cache in a loop-back
> > > NFS
On Tue, 6 May 2014 16:54:18 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields"
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:40:58PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > PF_LESS_THROTTLE has a very specific use case: to avoid deadlocks
> > and live-locks while writing to the page cache in a loop-back
> > NFS mount situation.
> >
> > It ther
On Tue, 06 May 2014 17:05:01 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 04/22/2014 10:40 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> > PF_LESS_THROTTLE has a very specific use case: to avoid deadlocks
> > and live-locks while writing to the page cache in a loop-back
> > NFS mount situation.
> >
> > It therefore makes sense to *
On 04/22/2014 10:40 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> PF_LESS_THROTTLE has a very specific use case: to avoid deadlocks
> and live-locks while writing to the page cache in a loop-back
> NFS mount situation.
>
> It therefore makes sense to *only* set PF_LESS_THROTTLE in this
> situation.
> We now know when a
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:40:58PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> PF_LESS_THROTTLE has a very specific use case: to avoid deadlocks
> and live-locks while writing to the page cache in a loop-back
> NFS mount situation.
>
> It therefore makes sense to *only* set PF_LESS_THROTTLE in this
> situation.
> W
PF_LESS_THROTTLE has a very specific use case: to avoid deadlocks
and live-locks while writing to the page cache in a loop-back
NFS mount situation.
It therefore makes sense to *only* set PF_LESS_THROTTLE in this
situation.
We now know when a request came from the local-host so it could be a
loop-
6 matches
Mail list logo