Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+3\/3\]\s+XFS\:\s+Don\'t\s+wake\s+xfsbufd\s+when\s+idle\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+3\/3\]\s+XFS\:\s+Don\'t\s+wake\s+xfsbufd\s+when\s+idle\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 3/3] XFS: Don't wake xfsbufd when idle (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:49:59 +1100; The xfsbufd wakes every xfsbufd_centisecs (once per second by default) for each filesystem even when the filesystem is idle. If the xfsbufd has nothing to do, put it into a long term sleep and only w; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00158.html (9,952 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 3/3] XFS: Don't wake xfsbufd when idle (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:51:48 -0500; Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00172.html (8,792 bytes)
3. RE: [PATCH 3/3] XFS: Don't wake xfsbufd when idle (score: 1): Author: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:51:25 -0600; Patch generally looks good but I have a question, below. Why do you switch from using xfs_buf_timer_centisecs to using xfs_buf_age_centisecs for the timeout (in the non-empty delwrite queue case)? He; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00271.html (11,841 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]