[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130603185228.GG8923@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 20:52:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
metin d <metdos@...oo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 10/10] mm: workingset: keep shadow entries in check
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 02:12:02PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > But given that, sure maybe 1 memory size is a bit strict, but surely we
> > can put a limit on things at about 2 memory sizes?
>
> That's what this 10/10 patch does (prune everything older than 2 *
> global_dirtyable_memory()), so I think we're talking past each other.
>
> Maybe the wording of the changelog was confusing? The paragraph you
> quoted above explains the problem resulting from 9/10 but which this
> patch 10/10 fixes.
Could be I just didn't read very well -- I pretty much raced through the
patches trying to get a general overview and see if I could spot
something weird.
I'll try again and let you know :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists