On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:18:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-06-16 12:16:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:18:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-06-16 12:16:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and
On Wed 08-06-16 12:16:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and move from two
> > > separate value ratios for the LRU lists to a
On Wed 08-06-16 12:16:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and move from two
> > > separate value ratios for the LRU lists to a
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and move from two
> > separate value ratios for the LRU lists to a relative LRU cost metric
> > with a shared denominator.
>
> I
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and move from two
> > separate value ratios for the LRU lists to a relative LRU cost metric
> > with a shared denominator.
>
> I
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:14:21PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:48:33PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > @@ -249,15 +249,10 @@ void rotate_reclaimable_page(struct page *page)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static void update_page_reclaim_stat(struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > -
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:14:21PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:48:33PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > @@ -249,15 +249,10 @@ void rotate_reclaimable_page(struct page *page)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static void update_page_reclaim_stat(struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > -
On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat vague
> notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
> concept of value is problematic,
On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat vague
> notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
> concept of value is problematic,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:48:33PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat vague
> notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
> concept of value is
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:48:33PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat vague
> notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
> concept of value is
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:34:43PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> > balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat
> > vague
> > notion of "value" of
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:34:43PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> > balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat
> > vague
> > notion of "value" of
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat
> vague
> notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
> concept of value is
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat
> vague
> notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
> concept of value is
Hi,
[auto build test ERROR on cifs/for-next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.7-rc2 next-20160606]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Hi,
[auto build test ERROR on cifs/for-next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.7-rc2 next-20160606]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat vague
notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
concept of value is problematic, because it has caused us to count any
event that remotely
Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat vague
notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
concept of value is problematic, because it has caused us to count any
event that remotely
20 matches
Mail list logo
