On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > > original scan targets introduces extra
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > > original scan targets introduces
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 08:57:54PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> > is able to avoid this
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> > is able to avoid this
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
> it does not
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 17:47 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > break;
> > > >
> > > > if (nr_file > nr_anon) {
> > > > - unsigned long
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 17:47 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Chen Yucong wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
break;
if (nr_file nr_anon) {
- unsigned long scan_target =
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
it does not change
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong sla...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
is able to avoid
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 08:57:54PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
is able to avoid this
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong sla...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets
On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong sla...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets introduces
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Chen Yucong wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > break;
> > >
> > > if (nr_file > nr_anon) {
> > > - unsigned long scan_target =
> > targets[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] +
> > >
> > -
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Chen Yucong wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
break;
if (nr_file nr_anon) {
- unsigned long scan_target =
targets[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] +
-
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > break;
> >
> > if (nr_file > nr_anon) {
> > - unsigned long scan_target =
> targets[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] +
> >
> -
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:27:16 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
>
> > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> > is able to avoid this
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:27:16 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote:
> Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
> it does not
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:27:16 +0800 Chen Yucong sla...@gmail.com wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:27:16 +0800 Chen Yucong sla...@gmail.com wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
is able to avoid
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
break;
if (nr_file nr_anon) {
- unsigned long scan_target =
targets[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] +
- targets[LRU_ACTIVE_ANON]
+ 1;
+
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 08:10:51AM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 08:24 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > > original scan
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 08:24 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> > original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> > is able to
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
> Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
> original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
> is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
>
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time,
it
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 08:24 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch
is able to avoid
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 08:10:51AM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 08:24 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote:
Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the
original scan targets
26 matches
Mail list logo