![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:02:24PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>I don't agree, there are times when you need to know the bare pages_xxx >>watermark, and times when you need to know the whole ->protection thing. > [snip] > > I don't see any benefit in limiting the high order, infact it seems a > bad bug. If something you should limit the _small_ order, so that the > high order will have a slight chance to succeed. You're basically doing > the opposite. > You need the order there so someone can't allocate a huge amount of memory and deplete all your reserves and crash the system. For day to day running, it should barely make a difference because the watermarks will be an order of magnitude larger. > The pages_low is completely useless too for example and it could go. > pages_min has some benefit for some more feature 2.6 provides (that > could be translated in more watermarks, to separate the "settings of > the watermarks" from the alloc_page user of the watermarks). > AFAIKS, pages_min, pages_low and pages_high are all required for what we want to be doing. I don't see you you could remove any one of them and still have everything functioning properly.... I haven't really looked at 2.4 or your patches though. Maybe I misunderstood you. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||