On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:21:04AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:24:23PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:38:04 -0700 Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:24:23PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:38:04 -0700 Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> > August, yikes, I thought it was much more recent.
> >
> > >
> > > > it
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:24:23PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:38:04 -0700 Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> August, yikes, I thought it was much more recent.
>
> >
> > > it seems that Hugh and me haven't reached a consensus here.
> >
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:38:04 -0700 Roman Gushchin wrote:
August, yikes, I thought it was much more recent.
>
> > it seems that Hugh and me haven't reached a consensus here.
> > Can, you, please, not merge this patch into 5.9, so we would have
> > more
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:38:04 -0700 Roman Gushchin wrote:
> it seems that Hugh and me haven't reached a consensus here.
> Can, you, please, not merge this patch into 5.9, so we would have
> more time to find a solution, acceptable for all?
No probs. I already had a big red asterisk on it ;)
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> it seems that Hugh and me haven't reached a consensus here.
> Can, you, please, not merge this patch into 5.9, so we would have
> more time to find a solution, acceptable for all?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Roman
Thanks, Roman: yes, I agree
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 08:01:33PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:17:05PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:06:55PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 08:01:33PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > I shall certainly want to reintroduce those stats to checking for
> > negatives, even if it's in a patch that never earns your approval,
> > and just ends up kept internal for
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 08:01:33PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:17:05PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:06:55PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > >
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:17:05PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:06:55PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Though another alternative did occur to me overnight: we
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:17:05PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:06:55PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > Though another alternative did occur to me overnight: we could
> > > scrap the logged warning, and show
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:06:55PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > Though another alternative did occur to me overnight: we could
> > scrap the logged warning, and show "nr_whatever -53" as output
> > from /proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh: that too would
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:06:55PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 08:45:47PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > But a better idea is perhaps to redefine the behavior of
> > > "echo >/proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh". What if
> > >
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 08:45:47PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > But a better idea is perhaps to redefine the behavior of
> > "echo >/proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh". What if
> > "echo someparticularstring >/proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh" were to
> >
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 08:45:47PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > I've noticed a number of warnings like "vmstat_refresh: nr_free_cma
> > -5" or "vmstat_refresh: nr_zone_write_pending -11" on our production
> > hosts. The numbers of these warnings
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> I've noticed a number of warnings like "vmstat_refresh: nr_free_cma
> -5" or "vmstat_refresh: nr_zone_write_pending -11" on our production
> hosts. The numbers of these warnings were relatively low and stable,
> so it didn't look like we are
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:03:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 14-07-20 10:39:20, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > I've noticed a number of warnings like "vmstat_refresh: nr_free_cma
> > -5" or "vmstat_refresh: nr_zone_write_pending -11" on our production
> > hosts. The numbers of these warnings
On Tue 14-07-20 10:39:20, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> I've noticed a number of warnings like "vmstat_refresh: nr_free_cma
> -5" or "vmstat_refresh: nr_zone_write_pending -11" on our production
> hosts. The numbers of these warnings were relatively low and stable,
> so it didn't look like we are
I've noticed a number of warnings like "vmstat_refresh: nr_free_cma
-5" or "vmstat_refresh: nr_zone_write_pending -11" on our production
hosts. The numbers of these warnings were relatively low and stable,
so it didn't look like we are systematically leaking the counters.
The corresponding vmstat
19 matches
Mail list logo
