>> When this is sorted out, should I keep the previous patch [1] applied
>> as well?
>
> That doesn't hurt.
OK, I've used just the latter patch (because I somehow believe the first
one lowers the probability of bad behavior), so let's see if kswapd
consumes CPU again. I don't have any test
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:27:36 +0200
Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Could you try out the attached patch, too?
>
> Sorry, I wasn't able to apply it against 2.6.22-gentoo-r3 and vanilla
> 2.6.22.7; I don't have the "order" member in the "struct scan_control"
> and
Rik van Riel wrote:
> Could you try out the attached patch, too?
Sorry, I wasn't able to apply it against 2.6.22-gentoo-r3 and vanilla
2.6.22.7; I don't have the "order" member in the "struct scan_control"
and also the bit about "if (sync_writeback == PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC &&
may_enter_fs)" was missing
Rik van Riel wrote:
Could you try out the attached patch, too?
Sorry, I wasn't able to apply it against 2.6.22-gentoo-r3 and vanilla
2.6.22.7; I don't have the order member in the struct scan_control
and also the bit about if (sync_writeback == PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC
may_enter_fs) was missing so there
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:27:36 +0200
Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rik van Riel wrote:
Could you try out the attached patch, too?
Sorry, I wasn't able to apply it against 2.6.22-gentoo-r3 and vanilla
2.6.22.7; I don't have the order member in the struct scan_control
and also the bit
When this is sorted out, should I keep the previous patch [1] applied
as well?
That doesn't hurt.
OK, I've used just the latter patch (because I somehow believe the first
one lowers the probability of bad behavior), so let's see if kswapd
consumes CPU again. I don't have any test patter to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:13:41 +0200
Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > How much memory did you have in "cached" when you looked
> > with top (and no swap enabled) ?
>
> Hi Rik,
> it was pretty low number (several thousands, or maybe tens of
> thousands).
>
> In the
Rik van Riel wrote:
> How much memory did you have in "cached" when you looked
> with top (and no swap enabled) ?
Hi Rik,
it was pretty low number (several thousands, or maybe tens of thousands).
In the meanwhile, I've come across your patch [1] ("prevent kswapd from
freeing excessive amounts of
Rik van Riel wrote:
How much memory did you have in cached when you looked
with top (and no swap enabled) ?
Hi Rik,
it was pretty low number (several thousands, or maybe tens of thousands).
In the meanwhile, I've come across your patch [1] (prevent kswapd from
freeing excessive amounts of
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:13:41 +0200
Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rik van Riel wrote:
How much memory did you have in cached when you looked
with top (and no swap enabled) ?
Hi Rik,
it was pretty low number (several thousands, or maybe tens of
thousands).
In the meanwhile, I've
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:13:42 +0200
Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I use a 2.6.22-gentoo-r2 SMP kernel with fglrx 8.40.4 [1],
> tp_smapi-0.32 and ipw3945-1.2.0 on a Thinkpad T60 with dual core
> Intel Core CPU. My root filesystem is XFS stored on an internal SATA
> disk, and
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:13:42 +0200
Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
I use a 2.6.22-gentoo-r2 SMP kernel with fglrx 8.40.4 [1],
tp_smapi-0.32 and ipw3945-1.2.0 on a Thinkpad T60 with dual core
Intel Core CPU. My root filesystem is XFS stored on an internal SATA
disk, and I have
12 matches
Mail list logo
