On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
> cpuset_write_dirty_map.htm
>
> 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?
If page->mapping has been cleared then the page was removed from the
mapping. __mark_inode_dirty just dirties the inode. If a truncation occurs
then the inode was modified.
> cpuset_write_throttle.htm
>
> I noticed that several lines have leading spaces. I didn't check if other
> patches have the problem too.
Maybe download the patches? How did those strange .htm endings get
appended to the patches?
> In get_dirty_limits(), when cpusets are configd you don't subtract highmen
> the same way that is done without cpusets. Is this intentional?
That is something in flux upstream. Linus changed it recently. Do it one
way or the other.
> It seems that dirty_exceeded is still a global punishment across cpusets.
> Should it be addressed?
Sure. It would be best if you could place that somehow in a cpuset.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
