Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 21:20 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Index: linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c > > === > > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/buffer.c 2007-04-19 19:59:26.0 +0200 > > +++ linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c 2007-04-19

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c > === > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/buffer.c2007-04-19 19:59:26.0 +0200 > +++ linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c 2007-04-19 20:35:39.0 +0200 > @@ -733,7 +733,7 @@ int

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 20:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 20:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 19:44 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > Count per BDI unstable pages. > > > > > > > > > > I'm wondering, is it really worth having this category

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 20:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 19:44 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > Count per BDI unstable pages. > > > > > > > I'm wondering, is it really worth having this category separate from > > per BDI brity pages? > > > > With the exception of the

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 19:44 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Count per BDI unstable pages. > > > > I'm wondering, is it really worth having this category separate from > per BDI brity pages? > > With the exception of the export to sysfs, always the sum of unstable > + dirty is used. I guess

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> Count per BDI unstable pages. > I'm wondering, is it really worth having this category separate from per BDI brity pages? With the exception of the export to sysfs, always the sum of unstable + dirty is used. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Miklos Szeredi
Count per BDI unstable pages. I'm wondering, is it really worth having this category separate from per BDI brity pages? With the exception of the export to sysfs, always the sum of unstable + dirty is used. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 19:44 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: Count per BDI unstable pages. I'm wondering, is it really worth having this category separate from per BDI brity pages? With the exception of the export to sysfs, always the sum of unstable + dirty is used. I guess you are

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 20:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 19:44 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: Count per BDI unstable pages. I'm wondering, is it really worth having this category separate from per BDI brity pages? With the exception of the export to sysfs,

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 20:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 20:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 19:44 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: Count per BDI unstable pages. I'm wondering, is it really worth having this category separate from per

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Miklos Szeredi
Index: linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c === --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/buffer.c2007-04-19 19:59:26.0 +0200 +++ linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c 2007-04-19 20:35:39.0 +0200 @@ -733,7 +733,7 @@ int __set_page_dirty_buffers(struct

Re: [PATCH 09/12] mm: count unstable pages per BDI

2007-04-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 21:20 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: Index: linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c === --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/buffer.c 2007-04-19 19:59:26.0 +0200 +++ linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c 2007-04-19 20:35:39.0 +0200