On 01/08/2014 04:17 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 08-01-14 14:19:23, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 01/07/2014 03:43 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:51:55 +0530 Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
But having said that I am not able to get an idea of sane implementation
to solve this readahead failure bug overcoming the anomaly you pointed
:(. hints/ideas.. ?? please let me know.
So if we would be happy with just fixing corner cases like this, we might
use total node memory size to detect them, can't we? If total node memory
size is 0, we can use 16 MB (or global number of free pages / 2 if we would
be uneasy with fixed 16 MB limit) as an upperbound...
Thanks Honza.
This seems to be more sensible option, I 'll send the patch with that
change (including 16MB limit if nobody disagrees).
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>