Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:37:44 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [patch] adjustments to dirty memory thresholds |
| |
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:52:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Eeeks indeed. But the main variables really are memory size, > IO bandwidth and workload. That's manageable. > The traditional toss-it-in-and-see-who-complains approach will > catch the weird corner cases but it's slow turnaround. I guess > as long as we know what the code is trying to do then it should be > fairly straightforward to verify that it's doing it.
Okay, not sure which in the thread to respond to, but since I can't find a public statement to this effect, in my testing, all 3 OOM patches behave identically.
Cheers, Bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |