search for: reclaimers

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

On 1/1/19 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. > However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a > background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only > available during requests. > > Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* > function checks whether

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

v3 was broken by a bad rebase, so let's forget about that one. Compared to v2: - Patch 1 is the same except for a minor comment change. - Patch 2 splits the reclaim code into a separate file (filters/cache/reclaim.c) - Addressed Eric's comments from his review of v2. - Retested on Linux and FreeBSD.

The following is mainly a capture of parts of multiple off-line discussions within members of the Crossbow team (Gopi, Thiru, Roamer, May-Lin, Thirumailai, Nitin, KB, ...), I thought I''d open it up to other participants. Crossbow''s core scheduling involves switching a NIC (or individual Rx rings on the NIC) to polling mode. The receive interrupt will become not only rarer,

On 1/3/19 6:37 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. > However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a > background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only > available during requests. > > Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* > function checks whether

Patch 1 is the same as last time, except for a minor comment fix. Patch 2 should address everything that Eric mentioned in his review, and has been retested. Rich.

I'm getting constantly high numbers of page reclaims & involuntary context switches for dovecot/auth. page reclaims = minor faults = cpu switching back to system-mode, But why is the auth process doing that so excessively? Same for the large number of involuntary context switches... Attached is my "dovecot -n" output. Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:40:34 +0100 type real

These are essentially identical to what was previously posted as patches 6/9 through 9/9 here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2018-December/msg00145.html except that it has been rebased onto the current git master and retested thoroughly. Rich.

On 15 Dec 2016, at 07:26, haifeng.qin at wellintech.com via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > For help: > > for loop lead to stack overflow, want to actively reclaim stack memory of alloc instruction. > > How to actively reclaim stack memory ? This sounds as if you’re putting the alloca inside the loop, not in the entry basic block and reusing it. If you

Gents, We want to understand the mechanism of zfs a bit better. Q: what is the design/algorithm of zfs in terms of reclaiming unused blocks? Q: what criteria is there for zfs to start reclaiming blocks Issue at hand is an LDOM or zone running in a virtual (thin-provisioned) disk on a NFS server and a zpool inside that vdisk. This vdisk tends to grow in size even if the user writes and deletes

v4: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-January/msg00032.html v5: - Now we set the block size at run time. I'd like to say that I was able to test this change, but unfortunately I couldn't find any easy way to create a filesystem on x86-64 with a block size > 4K. Ext4 doesn't support it at all, and XFS doesn't support block size > page size (and I

On Thu 12-07-18 19:34:16, Wei Wang wrote: > On 07/12/2018 04:13 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 12-07-18 10:52:08, Wei Wang wrote: > > > On 07/12/2018 10:30 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:17 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: > > > > > Would it be better to remove __GFP_THISNODE? We actually want to get

On Wed 05-02-20 17:34:02, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Commit 71994620bb25 ("virtio_balloon: replace oom notifier with shrinker") > changed the behavior when deflation happens automatically. Instead of > deflating when called by the OOM handler, the shrinker is used. > > However, the balloon is not simply some slab cache that should be > shrunk when under memory

On Wed 05-02-20 17:34:02, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Commit 71994620bb25 ("virtio_balloon: replace oom notifier with shrinker") > changed the behavior when deflation happens automatically. Instead of > deflating when called by the OOM handler, the shrinker is used. > > However, the balloon is not simply some slab cache that should be > shrunk when under memory

For help: for loop lead to stack overflow, want to actively reclaim stack memory of alloc instruction. How to actively reclaim stack memory ? haifeng.qin at wellintech.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161215/54b3b18c/attachment.html>

-> Is there a way to get a date stamp for the dmesg? At least on CentOS7: dmesg -T ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Hyatt" <dhyatt at dsgmail.wustl.edu> To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos at centos.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:36:46 PM Subject: [CentOS] Lockd: failed to reclaim lock for pid ... My environment is "heterogeneous" my