Re: Regression from 2.6.36

[azurIt]

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/