So it's really not necessary ? It would be better for us if you can go without it cos it means to run buggy kernel for one more day. Which kernel versions will include this fix ? Thank you very much! azur ______________________________________________________________ > Od: "Mel Gorman" <mgorman@xxxxxxx> > Komu: azurIt <azurit@xxxxxxxx> > DÃtum: 15.04.2011 15:01 > Predmet: Re: Regression from 2.6.36 > > CC: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>, "Changli Gao" <xiaosuo@xxxxxxxxx>, "Am?rico Wang" <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>, "Jiri Slaby" <jslaby@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jiri Slaby" <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxx> >On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 13:36 +0200, azurIt wrote: >> sysfs was already mounted: >> >> # mount >> sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) >> >> >> I have enabled all of the options you suggested and also CONFIG_DEBUG_FS ;) I will boot new kernel this night. Hope it won't degraded performance much.. >> > >It's only for curiousity's sake. As you report the patch fixes the >problem, it matches the theory that it's allocator latency. The script >would confirm it for sure, but it's not a high priority. > >-- >Mel Gorman >SUSE Labs > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
