From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] writeback: dirty position control Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:14:23 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20110811111423.GD4755@quack.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20110811022952.GA11404@localhost> On Thu 11-08-11 10:29:52, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 06:34:27AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 09-08-11 19:20:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 12:32 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > origin - dirty > > > > > pos_ratio = -------------- > > > > > origin - goal > > > > > > > > > which comes from the below [*] control line, so that when (dirty == goal), > > > > > pos_ratio == 1.0: > > > > > > > > OK, so basically you want a linear function for which: > > > > > > > > f(goal) = 1 and has a root somewhere > goal. > > > > > > > > (that one line is much more informative than all your graphs put > > > > together, one can start from there and derive your function) > > > > > > > > That does indeed get you the above function, now what does it mean? > > > > > > So going by: > > > > > > write_bw > > > ref_bw = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio * -------- > > > dirty_bw > > > > Actually, thinking about these formulas, why do we even bother with > > computing all these factors like write_bw, dirty_bw, pos_ratio, ... > > Couldn't we just have a feedback loop (probably similar to the one > > computing pos_ratio) which will maintain single value - ratelimit? When we > > are getting close to dirty limit, we will scale ratelimit down, when we > > will be getting significantly below dirty limit, we will scale the > > ratelimit up. Because looking at the formulas it seems to me that the net > > effect is the same - pos_ratio basically overrules everything... > > Good question. That is actually one of the early approaches I tried. > It somehow worked, however the resulted ratelimit is not only slow > responding, but also oscillating all the time. Yes, I think I vaguely remember that. > This is due to the imperfections > > 1) pos_ratio at best only provides a "direction" for adjusting the > ratelimit. There is only vague clues that if pos_ratio is small, > the errors in ratelimit should be small. > > 2) Due to time-lag, the assumptions in (1) about "direction" and > "error size" can be wrong. The ratelimit may already be > over-adjusted when the dirty pages take time to approach the > setpoint. The larger memory, the more time lag, the easier to > overshoot and oscillate. > > 3) dirty pages are constantly fluctuating around the setpoint, > so is pos_ratio. > > With (1) and (2), it's a control system very susceptible to disturbs. > With (3) we get constant disturbs. Well I had very hard time and > played dirty tricks (which you may never want to know ;-) trying to > tradeoff between response time and stableness.. Yes, I can see especially 2) is a problem. But I don't understand why your current formula would be that much different. As Peter decoded from your code, your current formula is: write_bw ref_bw = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio * -------- dirty_bw while previously it was essentially: ref_bw = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio So what is so magical about computing write_bw and dirty_bw separately? Is it because previously you did not use derivation of distance from the goal for updating pos_ratio? Because in your current formula write_bw/dirty_bw is a derivation of position... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, CR
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] writeback: dirty position control Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:14:23 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20110811111423.GD4755@quack.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20110811022952.GA11404@localhost> On Thu 11-08-11 10:29:52, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 06:34:27AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 09-08-11 19:20:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 12:32 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > origin - dirty > > > > > pos_ratio = -------------- > > > > > origin - goal > > > > > > > > > which comes from the below [*] control line, so that when (dirty == goal), > > > > > pos_ratio == 1.0: > > > > > > > > OK, so basically you want a linear function for which: > > > > > > > > f(goal) = 1 and has a root somewhere > goal. > > > > > > > > (that one line is much more informative than all your graphs put > > > > together, one can start from there and derive your function) > > > > > > > > That does indeed get you the above function, now what does it mean? > > > > > > So going by: > > > > > > write_bw > > > ref_bw = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio * -------- > > > dirty_bw > > > > Actually, thinking about these formulas, why do we even bother with > > computing all these factors like write_bw, dirty_bw, pos_ratio, ... > > Couldn't we just have a feedback loop (probably similar to the one > > computing pos_ratio) which will maintain single value - ratelimit? When we > > are getting close to dirty limit, we will scale ratelimit down, when we > > will be getting significantly below dirty limit, we will scale the > > ratelimit up. Because looking at the formulas it seems to me that the net > > effect is the same - pos_ratio basically overrules everything... > > Good question. That is actually one of the early approaches I tried. > It somehow worked, however the resulted ratelimit is not only slow > responding, but also oscillating all the time. Yes, I think I vaguely remember that. > This is due to the imperfections > > 1) pos_ratio at best only provides a "direction" for adjusting the > ratelimit. There is only vague clues that if pos_ratio is small, > the errors in ratelimit should be small. > > 2) Due to time-lag, the assumptions in (1) about "direction" and > "error size" can be wrong. The ratelimit may already be > over-adjusted when the dirty pages take time to approach the > setpoint. The larger memory, the more time lag, the easier to > overshoot and oscillate. > > 3) dirty pages are constantly fluctuating around the setpoint, > so is pos_ratio. > > With (1) and (2), it's a control system very susceptible to disturbs. > With (3) we get constant disturbs. Well I had very hard time and > played dirty tricks (which you may never want to know ;-) trying to > tradeoff between response time and stableness.. Yes, I can see especially 2) is a problem. But I don't understand why your current formula would be that much different. As Peter decoded from your code, your current formula is: write_bw ref_bw = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio * -------- dirty_bw while previously it was essentially: ref_bw = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio So what is so magical about computing write_bw and dirty_bw separately? Is it because previously you did not use derivation of distance from the goal for updating pos_ratio? Because in your current formula write_bw/dirty_bw is a derivation of position... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-11 11:14 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 305+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2011-08-06 8:44 [PATCH 0/5] IO-less dirty throttling v8 Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` [PATCH 1/5] writeback: account per-bdi accumulated dirtied pages Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` [PATCH 2/5] writeback: dirty position control Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 13:46 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 13:46 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 13:46 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 14:11 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 14:11 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 14:31 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 14:31 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 14:31 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 22:47 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 22:47 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 9:31 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 9:31 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 9:31 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 12:28 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 12:28 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 14:41 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 14:41 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 14:41 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 23:05 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 23:05 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 10:32 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 10:32 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 10:32 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 17:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 17:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 17:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 22:34 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-10 22:34 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-11 2:29 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-11 2:29 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-11 11:14 ` Jan Kara [this message] 2011-08-11 11:14 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-16 8:35 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-16 8:35 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 13:19 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 13:19 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 21:40 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-10 21:40 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-16 8:55 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-16 8:55 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-11 22:56 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-11 22:56 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-11 22:56 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 2:43 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 2:43 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 3:18 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 5:45 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 5:45 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 9:45 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 9:45 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 9:45 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 11:07 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 11:07 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 12:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 12:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 12:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 11:11 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 11:11 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 12:59 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 12:59 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-12 14:20 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-12 14:20 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-22 15:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-22 15:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-22 15:38 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-23 3:40 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-23 3:40 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-23 10:01 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-23 10:01 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-23 10:01 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-23 14:15 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-23 14:15 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-23 17:47 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-23 17:47 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-24 0:12 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-24 0:12 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-24 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-24 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 0:18 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 0:18 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 9:04 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 9:04 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 10:04 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 10:04 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 10:42 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 10:42 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 10:52 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 10:52 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 11:26 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 12:11 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 12:11 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 12:20 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 12:20 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 13:13 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 13:18 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 13:18 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 13:24 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 13:24 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-24 18:00 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-24 18:00 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-25 3:19 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-25 3:19 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-25 22:20 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-25 22:20 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-26 1:56 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 1:56 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 8:56 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 8:56 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-26 9:53 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-26 9:53 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-29 13:12 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-29 13:12 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-29 13:37 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-29 13:37 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-09-02 12:16 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-09-02 12:16 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-09-06 12:40 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-09-06 12:40 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-24 15:57 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-24 15:57 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-24 15:57 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-25 5:30 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-25 5:30 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-23 14:36 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-23 14:36 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 2:08 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 2:08 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-16 8:59 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-16 8:59 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: dirty rate control Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 14:54 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 14:54 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-11 3:42 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-11 3:42 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 11:07 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 11:07 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 16:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 16:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 16:17 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-15 14:08 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-15 14:08 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 15:50 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 15:50 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 16:16 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 16:16 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 16:16 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 16:19 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 16:19 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 16:19 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 14:07 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 14:07 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 14:00 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 14:00 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 17:10 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 17:10 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-15 14:11 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-15 14:11 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 16:56 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 16:56 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 16:56 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 14:10 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 14:15 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 14:15 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` [PATCH 4/5] writeback: per task dirty rate limit Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 14:35 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-06 14:35 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-07 6:19 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-07 6:19 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 14:21 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 14:21 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 23:32 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 23:32 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 14:23 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 14:23 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-08 22:38 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-08 22:38 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-13 16:28 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-13 16:28 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-15 14:21 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-15 14:26 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-15 14:26 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-09 17:46 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 17:46 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-10 3:29 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 3:29 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 18:18 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-10 18:18 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-11 0:55 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-11 0:55 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 18:35 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 18:35 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 18:35 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 3:40 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 3:40 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 10:25 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 10:25 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 10:25 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 11:13 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 11:13 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 8:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 14:48 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-06 14:48 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-06 14:48 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-07 6:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-07 6:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-07 6:44 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-06 16:46 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-06 16:46 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-07 7:18 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-07 9:50 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-07 9:50 ` Andrea Righi 2011-08-09 18:15 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 18:15 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 18:41 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 18:41 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-09 18:41 ` Peter Zijlstra 2011-08-10 3:22 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 3:22 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 3:26 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-10 3:26 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 19:16 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 19:16 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-10 4:33 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-09 2:01 ` [PATCH 0/5] IO-less dirty throttling v8 Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 2:01 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 5:55 ` Dave Chinner 2011-08-09 5:55 ` Dave Chinner 2011-08-09 14:04 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-09 14:04 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-10 7:41 ` Greg Thelen 2011-08-10 7:41 ` Greg Thelen 2011-08-10 7:41 ` Greg Thelen 2011-08-10 18:40 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-10 18:40 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-10 18:40 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-11 3:21 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-11 3:21 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-11 20:42 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-11 20:42 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-11 21:00 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-11 21:00 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-16 2:20 [PATCH 0/5] IO-less dirty throttling v9 Wu Fengguang 2011-08-16 2:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] writeback: dirty position control Wu Fengguang 2011-08-16 2:20 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-16 2:20 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-16 19:41 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-16 19:41 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-17 13:23 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-17 13:49 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-17 13:49 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-17 20:24 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-17 20:24 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-18 4:18 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-18 4:18 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-18 4:41 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-18 4:41 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-18 19:16 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-18 19:16 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-24 3:16 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-24 3:16 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-19 2:53 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-19 2:53 ` Vivek Goyal 2011-08-19 3:25 ` Wu Fengguang 2011-08-19 3:25 ` Wu Fengguang [not found] <CAFdhcLRKvfqBnXCXLwq-Qe1eNAGC-8XJ3BtHpQKzaa3RhHyp6A@mail.gmail.com> 2011-08-17 6:40 ` David Horner 2011-08-17 12:03 ` Jan Kara 2011-08-17 12:35 ` Wu Fengguang
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20110811111423.GD4755@quack.suse.cz \ --to=jack@suse.cz \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=arighi@develer.com \ --cc=david@fromorbit.com \ --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \ --cc=gthelen@google.com \ --cc=hch@lst.de \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.