[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback
    Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > Hmmmm.... Sorry. I got distracted and I have sent them to Kame-san who was
    > interested in working on them.
    > I have placed the most recent version at

    Hi Christoph -- a few comments on the patches:


    In __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() you always call
    cpuset_update_dirty_nodes() but in __set_page_dirty_buffers() you call
    it only if page->mapping is still set after locking. Is there a reason
    for the difference? Also a question not about your patch: why do those
    functions call __mark_inode_dirty() even if the dirty page has been
    truncated and mapping == NULL?


    I noticed that several lines have leading spaces. I didn't check if
    other patches have the problem too.

    In get_dirty_limits(), when cpusets are configd you don't subtract
    highmen the same way that is done without cpusets. Is this intentional?

    It seems that dirty_exceeded is still a global punishment across
    cpusets. Should it be addressed?

    -- Ethan

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-21 03:41    [W:0.020 / U:5.596 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site