... bictcp_cong_avoid+0x110/0x3cd ======================= Code: b9 79 0d 00 00 00 00 02 00 ... 7a b4 b9 16 78 00 00 00 00 08 95 14 d8 ... 95 14 d8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ac < ... 14 d8 00 74 b9 79 0c 00 00 00 00 02 00 ... 2007-04-25 13:31:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -330,7 +330, ...

linux-kernel - Jens Axboe - Apr 25 2007 - 07:35

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > > I will ...

linux-kernel - Andrew Morton - Apr 27 2007 - 03:43

... fine). > > --- fs/libfs.c~ 2007-04-25 13:30:50.000000000 +0200 > +++ fs/libfs.c 2007-04-25 13:31:00.000000000 +0200 > @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ > int simple_prepare_write(struct file *file, struct page *page, > unsigned from, unsigned to) > { ...

linux-kernel - Christoph Lameter - Apr 25 2007 - 11:36

... > > > > --- fs/libfs.c~ 2007-04-25 13:30:50.000000000 +0200 > > +++ fs/libfs.c 2007-04-25 13:31:00.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ > > int simple_prepare_write(struct file *file, struct page *page, > > unsigned from, unsigned to) > > { ...

linux-kernel - Jens Axboe - Apr 25 2007 - 13:53

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > The page cache handling in the various layers is significantly > simplified which reduces maintenance cost. How on earth can the *addition* of variable pagecache ...

linux-kernel - Andrew Morton - Apr 27 2007 - 03:26

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > I will submit pieces to mm depending on the > outcome of our discussions. Thanks. There's a ludicrous amount of MM work pending in -mm. It would probably be ...

linux-kernel - Andrew Morton - Apr 27 2007 - 03:29

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > I will submit pieces to mm depending on the > > outcome of our discussions. > There's a ludicrous amount of MM ...

linux-kernel - Christoph Lameter - Apr 27 2007 - 03:35

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:26:40AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > The page cache handling in the various layers is significantly > > simplified which reduces ...

linux-kernel - David Chinner - Apr 27 2007 - 04:37

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > The page cache handling in the various layers is significantly > > simplified which reduces maintenance cost. > ...

linux-kernel - Christoph Lameter - Apr 27 2007 - 08:01

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:26:40AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > The page cache handling in the various layers is significantly > > simplified which reduces ...

linux-kernel - David Chinner - Apr 27 2007 - 12:36

On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:00:17PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > OTOH, I'm not sure how much buy-in there was from the filesystems guys. > > > Particularly Christoph H and XFS (which is strange because they already > > > do vmapping in places). > > ...

linux-kernel - David Chinner - Sep 11 2007 - 21:49

On Wednesday 12 September 2007 10:00, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Yes. I think we differ on our interpretations of "okay". In my > > interpretation, it is not OK to use this patch as a way to solve VM or FS > ...

linux-kernel - Nick Piggin - Sep 11 2007 - 22:46

On Sun, 16 September 2007 00:30:32 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > Movable? I rather assume all slab allocations aren't movable. Then > slab defrag can try to tackle on users like dcache and inodes. Keep in > mind that with the exception of ...

linux-kernel - Jörn - Sep 16 2007 - 13:46

Jörn Engel writes: > On Sun, 16 September 2007 00:30:32 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >> >> Movable? I rather assume all slab allocations aren't movable. Then >> slab defrag can try to tackle on users like dcache and inodes. Keep ...

linux-kernel - Goswin von Brederlow - Sep 16 2007 - 18:06

On Mon, 17 September 2007 00:06:24 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > How probable is it that the dentry is needed again? If you copy it and > it is not needed then you wasted time. If you throw it out and it is > needed then you wasted time too. ...

linux-kernel - Jörn - Sep 16 2007 - 18:40

On (17/09/07 00:38), Goswin von Brederlow didst pronounce: > mel@skynet.ie (Mel Gorman) writes: > > > On (15/09/07 02:31), Goswin von Brederlow didst pronounce: > >> Mel Gorman writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 18:10 +0200, ...

linux-kernel - Mel Gorman - Sep 17 2007 - 04:57

On Tue, 18 September 2007 11:00:40 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > We still lack data on what sort of workloads really benefit from large > blocks Compressing filesystems like jffs2 and logfs gain better compression ratio with larger blocks. Going ...

linux-kernel - Jörn - Sep 18 2007 - 06:49

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:00:40AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > We still lack data on what sort of workloads really benefit from large > blocks (assuming there are any that cannot also be solved by improving > order-0). No we don't. All workloads ...

linux-kernel - David Chinner - Sep 18 2007 - 08:31

On Tuesday 18 September 2007 08:00, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > I don't know how it would prevent fragmentation from building up > > anyway. It's commonly the case that potentially unmovable objects > > are ...

linux-kernel - Nick Piggin - Sep 17 2007 - 20:11

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tuesday 18 September 2007 08:00, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > I don't know how it would prevent fragmentation from building up > > > anyway. It's commonly the ...

linux-kernel - Christoph Lameter - Sep 18 2007 - 16:36