On Thu 10-08-17 15:38:34, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/10/2017 03:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Tue 08-08-17 14:34:25, Wei Wang wrote:
> >>On 08/08/2017 02:12 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> >>>On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
> This is just too ug
On 08/10/2017 03:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 08-08-17 14:34:25, Wei Wang wrote:
On 08/08/2017 02:12 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
This is just too ugly and wrong actually. Never provide struct page
pointers outsi
On Tue 08-08-17 14:34:25, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/08/2017 02:12 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> >On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
> >>This is just too ugly and wrong actually. Never provide struct page
> >>pointers outside of the zone->lock. What I've
On 08/08/2017 02:12 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
This is just too ugly and wrong actually. Never provide struct page
pointers outside of the zone->lock. What I've had in mind was to simply
walk free lists of the suitabl
On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
This is just too ugly and wrong actually. Never provide struct page
pointers outside of the zone->lock. What I've had in mind was to simply
walk free lists of the suitable order and call the callback for each on
On 08/04/2017 04:24 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
For our use case, the callback just puts the reported page
block to the ring, then returns. If the ring is full as the host
is busy, then I think it should skip this one, and just return.
Because:
A. This is an optimization feature, losing a coup
On Fri 04-08-17 16:15:24, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/04/2017 03:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Fri 04-08-17 00:02:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:20:09PM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> >>>On Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:51 PM, Michal Hocko:
> As I've said earlier. Start s
On 08/04/2017 03:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 04-08-17 00:02:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:20:09PM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:51 PM, Michal Hocko:
As I've said earlier. Start simple optimize incrementally with some numbers to
justify
On Fri 04-08-17 00:02:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:20:09PM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:51 PM, Michal Hocko:
> > > As I've said earlier. Start simple optimize incrementally with some
> > > numbers to
> > > justify a more subtle code.
>
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:20:09PM +, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:51 PM, Michal Hocko:
> > As I've said earlier. Start simple optimize incrementally with some numbers
> > to
> > justify a more subtle code.
> > --
>
> OK. Let's start with the simple implementation as yo
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:51 PM, Michal Hocko:
> As I've said earlier. Start simple optimize incrementally with some numbers to
> justify a more subtle code.
> --
OK. Let's start with the simple implementation as you suggested.
Best,
Wei
On Thu 03-08-17 21:17:25, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 08:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 03-08-17 20:11:58, Wei Wang wrote:
> >>On 08/03/2017 07:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 03-08-1
On 08/03/2017 08:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 20:11:58, Wei Wang wrote:
On 08/03/2017 07:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote:
On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote:
On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hoc
On Thu 03-08-17 20:11:58, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 07:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote:
> >>On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 03-08-1
On 08/03/2017 07:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote:
On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote:
On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
[...]
+static int report_free_pag
On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote:
> >>On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
> >[...]
> +static int report_free_page_block(struct zone *zone, un
On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote:
On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
[...]
+static int report_free_page_block(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
+ unsigne
On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
[...]
> >>+static int report_free_page_block(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
> >>+ unsigned int migratetype, struct page **page)
>
On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
This patch adds support to walk through the free page blocks in the
system and report them via a callback function. Some page blocks may
leave the free list after the report function returns, so it is the
calle
On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
> This patch adds support to walk through the free page blocks in the
> system and report them via a callback function. Some page blocks may
> leave the free list after the report function returns, so it is the
> caller's responsibility to either detect or
20 matches
Mail list logo
