Searched hist:"3 e26c149c358529b1605f8959341d34bc4b880a3" (Results 1 – 4 of 4) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/include/linux/ |
| H A D | init_task.h | diff 3e26c149c358529b1605f8959341d34bc4b880a3 Wed Oct 17 01:25:50 CDT 2007 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> mm: dirty balancing for tasks
Based on ideas of Andrew:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=102912915020543&w=2
Scale the bdi dirty limit inversly with the tasks dirty rate.
This makes heavy writers have a lower dirty limit than the occasional writer.
Andrea proposed something similar:
http://lwn.net/Articles/152277/
The main disadvantage to his patch is that he uses an unrelated quantity to
measure time, which leaves him with a workload dependant tunable. Other than
that the two approaches appear quite similar.
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
| H A D | sched.h | diff 3e26c149c358529b1605f8959341d34bc4b880a3 Wed Oct 17 01:25:50 CDT 2007 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> mm: dirty balancing for tasks
Based on ideas of Andrew:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=102912915020543&w=2
Scale the bdi dirty limit inversly with the tasks dirty rate.
This makes heavy writers have a lower dirty limit than the occasional writer.
Andrea proposed something similar:
http://lwn.net/Articles/152277/
The main disadvantage to his patch is that he uses an unrelated quantity to
measure time, which leaves him with a workload dependant tunable. Other than
that the two approaches appear quite similar.
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
| /openbmc/linux/mm/ |
| H A D | page-writeback.c | diff 3e26c149c358529b1605f8959341d34bc4b880a3 Wed Oct 17 01:25:50 CDT 2007 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> mm: dirty balancing for tasks
Based on ideas of Andrew:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=102912915020543&w=2
Scale the bdi dirty limit inversly with the tasks dirty rate.
This makes heavy writers have a lower dirty limit than the occasional writer.
Andrea proposed something similar:
http://lwn.net/Articles/152277/
The main disadvantage to his patch is that he uses an unrelated quantity to
measure time, which leaves him with a workload dependant tunable. Other than
that the two approaches appear quite similar.
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
| /openbmc/linux/kernel/ |
| H A D | fork.c | diff 3e26c149c358529b1605f8959341d34bc4b880a3 Wed Oct 17 01:25:50 CDT 2007 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> mm: dirty balancing for tasks
Based on ideas of Andrew:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=102912915020543&w=2
Scale the bdi dirty limit inversly with the tasks dirty rate.
This makes heavy writers have a lower dirty limit than the occasional writer.
Andrea proposed something similar:
http://lwn.net/Articles/152277/
The main disadvantage to his patch is that he uses an unrelated quantity to
measure time, which leaves him with a workload dependant tunable. Other than
that the two approaches appear quite similar.
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|