On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:02:24AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems
> > > so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since,
> > > a retest is desi
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems
> > so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since,
> > a retest is desirable. I've posted the current version of the series but
> > I'll qu
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:52:03AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:27:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > .
> > > This series is not without its hazards. There are at least three areas
> > > that I'm concerned with even though I could not reproduce any problems in
> > > th
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:27:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> .
> > This series is not without its hazards. There are at least three areas
> > that I'm concerned with even though I could not reproduce any problems in
> > that area.
> >
> > 1. Reclaim/compaction is going to be affected becaus
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 04:37:15PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
> because it was required by should_reclaim_retry. The last patch in the
> series removes the double accounting. It's not integrated with the series
> as reviewers may
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:55:09AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:04:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > How big ratio between highmem:lowmem do you think a problem?
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's a "how long is a piece of string" type question. The ratio does
> > > not mat
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:04:12PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > How big ratio between highmem:lowmem do you think a problem?
> > >
> >
> > That's a "how long is a piece of string" type question. The ratio does
> > not matter as much as whether the workload is both under memory pressure
> > an
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:34:05AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:37:03AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > The reason we have zone-based reclaim is that we used to have
> > > large highmem zones in common configurations and it was necessary
> > > to quickly find ZONE_NORMAL pa
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:37:03AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > The reason we have zone-based reclaim is that we used to have
> > large highmem zones in common configurations and it was necessary
> > to quickly find ZONE_NORMAL pages for reclaim. Today, this is much
> > less of a concern as machin
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:01:08PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> (Sorry for the resend, I accidentally sent the branch that still had the
> Signed-off-by's from mmotm still applied which is incorrect.)
>
> Previous releases double accounted LRU stats on the zone and the node
> because it was required
10 matches
Mail list logo
