+1
−0
+0
−7
+6
−0
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
Share the same page flag bit for PG_readahead and PG_reclaim. One is used only on file reads, another is only for emergency writes. One is used mostly for fresh/young pages, another is for old pages. Combinations of possible interactions are: a) clear PG_reclaim => implicit clear of PG_readahead it will delay an asynchronous readahead into a synchronous one it actually does _good_ for readahead: the pages will be reclaimed soon, it's readahead thrashing! in this case, synchronous readahead makes more sense. b) clear PG_readahead => implicit clear of PG_reclaim one(and only one) page will not be reclaimed in time it can be avoided by checking PageWriteback(page) in readahead first c) set PG_reclaim => implicit set of PG_readahead will confuse readahead and make it restart the size rampup process it's a trivial problem, and can mostly be avoided by checking PageWriteback(page) first in readahead d) set PG_readahead => implicit set of PG_reclaim PG_readahead will never be set on already cached pages. PG_reclaim will always be cleared on dirtying a page. so not a problem. In summary, a) we get better behavior b,d) possible interactions can be avoided c) racy condition exists that might affect readahead, but the chance is _really_ low, and the hurt on readahead is trivial. Compound pages also use PG_reclaim, but for now they do not interact with reclaim/readahead code. Signed-off-by:Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by:
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE