From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: tracking shared dirty pages -v10 From: Arjan van de Ven In-Reply-To: References: <20060619175243.24655.76005.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060619175253.24655.96323.sendpatchset@lappy> <1151019590.15744.144.camel@lappy> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:05:24 +0200 Message-Id: <1151085924.3204.36.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Hugh Dickins , Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , David Howells , Christoph Lameter , Martin Bligh , Nick Piggin List-ID: > My main worry has always been the effects of this on some strange load, > not the stability itself. > > > And have we even seen stats for it yet? We know that it shouldn't > > affect the vast majority of loads (not mapping shared writable), but > > it won't be fixing any problem on them either; and we've had reports > > that it does fix the issue, but at what perf cost? (I may have missed) > > _Exactly_. This is why I think earlier rather than later is better. > > Sitting in -mm won't get us any new unexpected load cases - only more of > the same that hasn't shown any huge flags per se (although the dirty limit > discussion clearly shows people are at least thinking about it). one options it to ask the distributions to put this into their more experimental kernels for a bit to give it a broader exposure... it's still a bit small but at least broader than "kernel developers"... -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org