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
> 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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo