On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:12:19PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:48:36AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > Sure!
> > what do you think of:
> >
> > +/* putback_lru_page() counterpart for a ballooned page */
> > +void putback_balloon_page(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:12:19PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:48:36AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Sure!
what do you think of:
+/* putback_lru_page() counterpart for a ballooned page */
+void putback_balloon_page(struct page *page)
+{
+
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:48:36AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> Sure!
> what do you think of:
>
> +/* putback_lru_page() counterpart for a ballooned page */
> +void putback_balloon_page(struct page *page)
> +{
> + lock_page(page);
> + if (!WARN_ON(!movable_balloon_page(page))) {
> +
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:00:19AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:53:19PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
> > the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
> > thus
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:53:19PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
> the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
> thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
>
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:53:19PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:00:19AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:53:19PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:48:36AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Sure!
what do you think of:
+/* putback_lru_page() counterpart for a ballooned page */
+void putback_balloon_page(struct page *page)
+{
+ lock_page(page);
+ if (!WARN_ON(!movable_balloon_page(page))) {
+
Hi Rafael,
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:53:19PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
> the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
> thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced
On 08/08/2012 06:53 PM, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
transparent huge pages that
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
transparent huge pages that could be used by the guest workload.
This
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
transparent huge pages that could be used by the guest workload.
This
On 08/08/2012 06:53 PM, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
transparent huge pages that
Hi Rafael,
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:53:19PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number
14 matches
Mail list logo
