On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 03:09:40PM +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > BTW do you know if there is any plans for 2.6++ to actually use
> > > RLIMIT_RSS? I saw a hint in that direction in mm/thrash.c
> > > grab_swap_token but it is commented out and only skeleton code...
> >
> > Nope, RLIMIT_RSS does
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 03:09:40PM +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:38:49AM +0100, Ake wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:49:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/mm/filemap.c.orig 2004-11-17
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:38:49AM +0100, Ake wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:49:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > --- a/mm/filemap.c.orig 2004-11-17 09:54:22.0 -0200
> > > +++ b/mm/filemap.c2005-01-26
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:38:49AM +0100, Ake wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:49:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > There is also a misinformative comment in fs/proc/array.c
> > in proc_pid_stat where it says
> > > mm ? mm->rss : 0, /* you might want to shift this left 3 */
> > > the
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:38:49AM +0100, Ake wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:49:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There is also a misinformative comment in fs/proc/array.c
in proc_pid_stat where it says
mm ? mm-rss : 0, /* you might want to shift this left 3 */
the number 3
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:38:49AM +0100, Ake wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:49:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
--- a/mm/filemap.c.orig 2004-11-17 09:54:22.0 -0200
+++ b/mm/filemap.c2005-01-26 15:21:10.614842296 -0200
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 03:09:40PM +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:38:49AM +0100, Ake wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:49:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
--- a/mm/filemap.c.orig 2004-11-17 09:54:22.0 -0200
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 03:09:40PM +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
BTW do you know if there is any plans for 2.6++ to actually use
RLIMIT_RSS? I saw a hint in that direction in mm/thrash.c
grab_swap_token but it is commented out and only skeleton code...
Nope, RLIMIT_RSS does not seem to
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:49:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > There is also a misinformative comment in fs/proc/array.c
> > in proc_pid_stat where it says
> > mm ? mm->rss : 0, /* you might want to shift this left 3 */
> > the number 3 should probably be PAGE_SHIFT-10.
Don't forget the
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:07:50PM +0100, Ake wrote:
> Use of rlim[RLIMIT_RSS] in mm/filemap.c is wrong.
> It is passed down to kernel as a number of bytes but is being used as a
> number of pages.
>
> There is also a misinformative comment in fs/proc/array.c
> in proc_pid_stat where it says
> mm
Use of rlim[RLIMIT_RSS] in mm/filemap.c is wrong.
It is passed down to kernel as a number of bytes but is being used as a
number of pages.
There is also a misinformative comment in fs/proc/array.c
in proc_pid_stat where it says
mm ? mm->rss : 0, /* you might want to shift this left 3 */
the
Use of rlim[RLIMIT_RSS] in mm/filemap.c is wrong.
It is passed down to kernel as a number of bytes but is being used as a
number of pages.
There is also a misinformative comment in fs/proc/array.c
in proc_pid_stat where it says
mm ? mm-rss : 0, /* you might want to shift this left 3 */
the number
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:07:50PM +0100, Ake wrote:
Use of rlim[RLIMIT_RSS] in mm/filemap.c is wrong.
It is passed down to kernel as a number of bytes but is being used as a
number of pages.
There is also a misinformative comment in fs/proc/array.c
in proc_pid_stat where it says
mm ?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:49:04PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
There is also a misinformative comment in fs/proc/array.c
in proc_pid_stat where it says
mm ? mm-rss : 0, /* you might want to shift this left 3 */
the number 3 should probably be PAGE_SHIFT-10.
Don't forget the comment
14 matches
Mail list logo
