On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 02:12:02PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > But given that, sure maybe 1 memory size is a bit strict, but surely we > > can put a limit on things at about 2 memory sizes? > > That's what this 10/10 patch does (prune everything older than 2 * > global_dirtyable_memory()), so I think we're talking past each other. > > Maybe the wording of the changelog was confusing? The paragraph you > quoted above explains the problem resulting from 9/10 but which this > patch 10/10 fixes. Could be I just didn't read very well -- I pretty much raced through the patches trying to get a general overview and see if I could spot something weird. I'll try again and let you know :-) -- 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
