On Fri 23-09-16 12:55:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/23/2016 10:26 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> include/linux/compaction.h | 5 +++--
> >> mm/compaction.c| 44
> >> +++-
> >> mm/internal.h | 1 +
> >> mm/vmscan.c
On Fri 23-09-16 12:55:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/23/2016 10:26 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> include/linux/compaction.h | 5 +++--
> >> mm/compaction.c| 44
> >> +++-
> >> mm/internal.h | 1 +
> >> mm/vmscan.c
On 09/23/2016 10:26 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> include/linux/compaction.h | 5 +++--
>> mm/compaction.c| 44 +++-
>> mm/internal.h | 1 +
>> mm/vmscan.c| 6 --
>> 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 25
On 09/23/2016 10:26 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> include/linux/compaction.h | 5 +++--
>> mm/compaction.c| 44 +++-
>> mm/internal.h | 1 +
>> mm/vmscan.c| 6 --
>> 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 25
On Thu 22-09-16 17:18:48, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 07:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> > We still do not ignore fragindex in the full priority. This part has
> > always been quite unclear to me so I cannot really tell whether that
On Thu 22-09-16 17:18:48, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 07:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> > We still do not ignore fragindex in the full priority. This part has
> > always been quite unclear to me so I cannot really tell whether that
On 09/21/2016 07:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> We still do not ignore fragindex in the full priority. This part has
> always been quite unclear to me so I cannot really tell whether that
> makes any difference or not but just to be on the safe
On 09/21/2016 07:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> We still do not ignore fragindex in the full priority. This part has
> always been quite unclear to me so I cannot really tell whether that
> makes any difference or not but just to be on the safe
On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to
> Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction
> feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to provide
> a fix quickly
On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to
> Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction
> feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to provide
> a fix quickly
On Tuesday 06 of September 2016, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to
> Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction
> feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to
> provide a fix
On Tuesday 06 of September 2016, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to
> Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction
> feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to
> provide a fix
After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to
Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction
feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to provide
a fix quickly for 4.8 rc and 4.7 stable series, while mmotm had an
After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to
Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction
feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to provide
a fix quickly for 4.8 rc and 4.7 stable series, while mmotm had an
14 matches
Mail list logo
