On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:36:52 +1000 David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> wrote:THe good news is that direct reclaim is.. rare. And I also doubt XFS is unique here; imagine the whole stacking thing on x86-64 just the same ... I wonder if the direct reclaim path should avoid direct reclaim if the stack has only X bytes left. (where the value of X is... well we can figure that one out later) The rarity of direct reclaim during normal use ought to make this not a performance problem per se, and the benefits go further than just "XFS" or "4K stacks". -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Kok, Auke | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc1 |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Jeff Garzik | Re: [Patch v2] Make PCI extended config space (MMCONFIG) a driver opt-in |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Eric Dumazet | [PATCH] net: remove superfluous call to synchronize_net() |
