Re: [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3

2007-01-29 Thread Andy Whitcroft
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 + > Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. This is >> basically unchanged from the last post, other than being rebased >> to 2.6.19-rc2-mm2. > > The patch sequencing appeared to be desig

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3

2007-01-29 Thread Andy Whitcroft
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 + > Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. > > more... > > One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end > up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3

2006-12-12 Thread Andy Whitcroft
Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 + Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. more... One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want to

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3

2006-12-12 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 + Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. more... One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want to reclaim. Regardless of

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3

2006-12-11 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 + Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. This is > basically unchanged from the last post, other than being rebased > to 2.6.19-rc2-mm2. The patch sequencing appeared to be designed to make the code hard to rev