On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:56:15 -0400 Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Anyway. Your wording that nothing should be done about the soft reclaim
> > seems to be quite clear though. If this position is really firm then go
> > ahead and NACK the series _explicitly_ so that Andrew or you can send a
> > revert
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 06:44:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-09-13 12:17:09, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:49:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 06-09-13 15:23:11, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...]
> > > > I would really like to deprecate soft limits and
On Fri 13-09-13 12:17:09, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:49:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 06-09-13 15:23:11, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > > I would really like to deprecate soft limits and introduce something
> > > new that has the proper semantics we want from
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:49:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 06-09-13 15:23:11, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:38:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > To handle overcommit situations more gracefully. As the documentation
> > > states:
> > > "
> > > 7. Soft
On Fri 06-09-13 15:23:11, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:38:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > To handle overcommit situations more gracefully. As the documentation
> > states:
> > "
> > 7. Soft limits
> >
> > Soft limits allow for greater sharing of memory. The idea be
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:38:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 03-09-13 12:15:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Tue 20-08-13 10:13:39, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 19-08-13 12:35:12, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
On Tue 03-09-13 12:15:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue 20-08-13 10:13:39, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 19-08-13 12:35:12, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:58:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [I am mostly offline for the whole week with very limitted internet
> access so it will get longer for me to respond to emails. Sorry about
> that]
Same deal for me, just got back. Sorry for the delays.
> On Tue 20-08-13
[I am mostly offline for the whole week with very limitted internet
access so it will get longer for me to respond to emails. Sorry about
that]
On Tue 20-08-13 10:13:39, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 19-08-13 12:35:12, Johannes We
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 19-08-13 12:35:12, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is the fifth version of the patchset.
> > >
> > > Summary of versions:
> > > The first vers
On Mon 19-08-13 12:35:12, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the fifth version of the patchset.
> >
> > Summary of versions:
> > The first version has been posted here:
> > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.m
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the fifth version of the patchset.
>
> Summary of versions:
> The first version has been posted here:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/97973
> (lkml wasn't CCed at the time so I cannot find it in lw
On Thu 20-06-13 12:12:06, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > base is mmotm-2013-05-09-15-57
> > baserebase is mmotm-2013-06-05-17-24-63 + patches from the current mmots
> > without slab shrinkers patchset.
> > reworkrebase all patches 8 applied on
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:09:06PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> And I am total idiot. The machine was not booted with mem=1G so the
> figures are completely useless.
>
> It is s Friday. I will start everything again on Monday with a clean
> head.
>
> Sorry about all the noise.
Oh, don't be.
On Fri 21-06-13 17:04:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 21-06-13 16:09:38, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 21-06-13 16:06:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Can you try this monolithic patch please?
> > >
> > > Wow, this looks much better!
> >
> > Damn it! Scratch that. I have made a mistake
On Fri 21-06-13 16:09:38, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 21-06-13 16:06:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Can you try this monolithic patch please?
> >
> > Wow, this looks much better!
>
> Damn it! Scratch that. I have made a mistake in configuration so this
> all has been 0-no-limit in fact. S
On Fri 21-06-13 16:06:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Can you try this monolithic patch please?
>
> Wow, this looks much better!
Damn it! Scratch that. I have made a mistake in configuration so this
all has been 0-no-limit in fact. Sorry about that. It's only now that
I've noticed that so I am
On Thu 20-06-13 12:12:06, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > base is mmotm-2013-05-09-15-57
> > baserebase is mmotm-2013-06-05-17-24-63 + patches from the current mmots
> > without slab shrinkers patchset.
> > reworkrebase all patches 8 applied on
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> base is mmotm-2013-05-09-15-57
> baserebase is mmotm-2013-06-05-17-24-63 + patches from the current mmots
> without slab shrinkers patchset.
> reworkrebase all patches 8 applied on top of baserebase
>
> * No-limit
> User
> base: min:
On Tue 18-06-13 15:01:21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > My primary test case was a parallel kernel build with 2 groups (make
> > is running with -j4 with a distribution .config in a separate cgroup
> > without any hard limit) on a 8 CPU m
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> My primary test case was a parallel kernel build with 2 groups (make
> is running with -j4 with a distribution .config in a separate cgroup
> without any hard limit) on a 8 CPU machine booted with 1GB memory. I
> was mostly interested
Hi,
This is the fifth version of the patchset.
Summary of versions:
The first version has been posted here:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/97973
(lkml wasn't CCed at the time so I cannot find it in lwn.net
archives). There were no major objections.
The second version has been
22 matches
Mail list logo
