Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
> Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. This is
>> basically unchanged from the last post, other than being rebased
>> to 2.6.19-rc2-mm2.
>
> The patch sequencing appeared to be
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
> Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set.
>
> more...
>
> One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end
> up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. This is
basically unchanged from the last post, other than being rebased
to 2.6.19-rc2-mm2.
The patch sequencing appeared to be designed to make
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set.
more...
One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end
up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set.
more...
One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end
up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want to
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set.
more...
One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end
up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want to reclaim.
Regardless
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set.
more...
One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end
up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want to reclaim.
Regardless of
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set.
more...
One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end
up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want to
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. This is
> basically unchanged from the last post, other than being rebased
> to 2.6.19-rc2-mm2.
The patch sequencing appeared to be designed to make the code hard to
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +
Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. This is
basically unchanged from the last post, other than being rebased
to 2.6.19-rc2-mm2.
The patch sequencing appeared to be designed to make the code hard to
review,
This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. This is
basically unchanged from the last post, other than being rebased
to 2.6.19-rc2-mm2. This has passed basic stress testing on a range
of machines here.
[Sorry for the delay reposting, I had a test failure and needed
to confirm it was not
This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. This is
basically unchanged from the last post, other than being rebased
to 2.6.19-rc2-mm2. This has passed basic stress testing on a range
of machines here.
[Sorry for the delay reposting, I had a test failure and needed
to confirm it was not
12 matches
Mail list logo
