On Wed 11-06-14 11:15:44, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 04:21:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2293,13 +2293,20 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> > struct scan_control *sc,
> >
> > static void
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 04:21:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-05-14 18:00:56, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 04:21:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 18:00:56, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 11-06-14 11:15:44, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 04:21:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2293,13 +2293,20 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
struct scan_control *sc,
static void shrink_zone(struct
Andrew, it seems this one got lost as well.
On Mon 05-05-14 16:21:00, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-05-14 18:00:56, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at
Andrew, it seems this one got lost as well.
On Mon 05-05-14 16:21:00, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 18:00:56, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM
Andrew, could you queue/fold this one, please?
On Fri 02-05-14 17:48:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> From 3101ce41cc8c0c9691d98054e8811c66a77cd079 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:47:32 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mmotm:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 08:30:01PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-05-14 12:51:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:12:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 06-05-14 11:21:12, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko
On Tue 06-05-14 12:51:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:12:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 06-05-14 11:21:12, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > > > The strongest point was made by Rik when he
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:12:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am adding Rik to CC (sorry to put you in the middle of a thread -
> we have started here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/28/237). You were
> stressing out risks of using lowlimit as a hard guarantee at LSF. Could
> you repeat your
I am adding Rik to CC (sorry to put you in the middle of a thread -
we have started here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/28/237). You were
stressing out risks of using lowlimit as a hard guarantee at LSF. Could
you repeat your concerns here as well, please?
Short summary:
We are basically
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-05-14 09:29:32, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:00:56PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes
On Tue 06-05-14 09:29:32, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:00:56PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > This is not even guarantees anymore, but rather
On Tue 06-05-14 09:29:32, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:00:56PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
This is not even guarantees anymore, but rather another reclaim
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 06-05-14 09:29:32, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:00:56PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
I am adding Rik to CC (sorry to put you in the middle of a thread -
we have started here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/28/237). You were
stressing out risks of using lowlimit as a hard guarantee at LSF. Could
you repeat your concerns here as well, please?
Short summary:
We are basically
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:12:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
I am adding Rik to CC (sorry to put you in the middle of a thread -
we have started here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/28/237). You were
stressing out risks of using lowlimit as a hard guarantee at LSF. Could
you repeat your
On Tue 06-05-14 12:51:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:12:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 06-05-14 11:21:12, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
The strongest point was made by Rik when he claimed that
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 08:30:01PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 06-05-14 12:51:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:12:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 06-05-14 11:21:12, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
Andrew, could you queue/fold this one, please?
On Fri 02-05-14 17:48:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
From 3101ce41cc8c0c9691d98054e8811c66a77cd079 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:47:32 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] mmotm:
On Fri 02-05-14 18:00:56, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > >
On Fri 02-05-14 18:00:56, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko
On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > >
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
> > > ---
On Fri 02-05-14 11:34:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:11:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 02-05-14 11:04:34, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > @@ -2236,12 +2246,9 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> > > > struct scan_control *sc,
> > > >
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:11:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-05-14 11:04:34, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...]
> > > @@ -2236,12 +2246,9 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> > > struct scan_control *sc,
> > > do {
> > > struct lruvec *lruvec;
On Fri 02-05-14 11:04:34, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -2236,12 +2246,9 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> > struct scan_control *sc,
> > do {
> > struct lruvec *lruvec;
> >
> > - /*
> > -* Memcg
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 04:15:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-05-14 09:01:18, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > >
On Fri 02-05-14 09:01:18, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > >
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > >
On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > >
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static struct
On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index
On Fri 02-05-14 09:01:18, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
diff --git
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 04:15:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 09:01:18, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28,
On Fri 02-05-14 11:04:34, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
@@ -2236,12 +2246,9 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
struct scan_control *sc,
do {
struct lruvec *lruvec;
- /*
-* Memcg might be under
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:11:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:04:34, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
@@ -2236,12 +2246,9 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
struct scan_control *sc,
do {
struct lruvec *lruvec;
-
On Fri 02-05-14 11:34:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:11:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:04:34, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
@@ -2236,12 +2246,9 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
struct scan_control *sc,
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned
> short id)
>
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned
short id)
This patch introduces low limit reclaim. The low_limit acts as a reclaim
protection because groups which are under their low_limit are considered
ineligible for reclaim. While hardlimit protects from using more memory
than allowed lowlimit protects from getting bellow memory assigned to
the group
This patch introduces low limit reclaim. The low_limit acts as a reclaim
protection because groups which are under their low_limit are considered
ineligible for reclaim. While hardlimit protects from using more memory
than allowed lowlimit protects from getting bellow memory assigned to
the group
48 matches
Mail list logo