On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 23:09 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings, so
>>> for non-ram backed filesystems emulate with linear mappings. This
>>> retains ABI compatibility with previous kernels at minimal code cost.
>>> All known users
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 23:09 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings, so
for non-ram backed filesystems emulate with linear mappings. This
retains ABI compatibility with previous kernels at minimal code cost.
All known users of nonlinear
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:00 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:09:19 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings,
>
> Doesn't it? iirc the problem is that we don't correctly re-clean the ptes
> while
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:09:19 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings,
Doesn't it? iirc the problem is that we don't correctly re-clean the ptes
while starting writeout. And the dirty-page accounting is in fact correct
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:12:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 23:09 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > From: Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings, so
> > for non-ram backed filesystems emulate with
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 23:09 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> From: Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings, so
> for non-ram backed filesystems emulate with linear mappings. This
> retains ABI compatibility with previous kernels at
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 23:09 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings, so
for non-ram backed filesystems emulate with linear mappings. This
retains ABI compatibility with previous kernels at minimal
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:12:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 23:09 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings, so
for non-ram backed filesystems emulate with linear
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:09:19 +0100 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings,
Doesn't it? iirc the problem is that we don't correctly re-clean the ptes
while starting writeout. And the dirty-page accounting is in fact correct
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:00 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:09:19 +0100 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings,
Doesn't it? iirc the problem is that we don't correctly re-clean the ptes
while starting
From: Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings, so
for non-ram backed filesystems emulate with linear mappings. This
retains ABI compatibility with previous kernels at minimal code cost.
All known users of nonlinear mappings actually
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dirty page accounting/limiting doesn't work for nonlinear mappings, so
for non-ram backed filesystems emulate with linear mappings. This
retains ABI compatibility with previous kernels at minimal code cost.
All known users of nonlinear mappings actually
12 matches
Mail list logo
