[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    SubjectRe: lowmem_reserve (replaces protection)
    On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 02:25:37AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 02:17:33PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > OK that makes sense... it isn't the length of the name, but the fact
    > > that that naming convention hasn't proliferated thoughout the 2.6 tree;
    > I don't see any other equivalent teminology besides my "classzone" word
    > existing, if we standardize on "alloc_type" to only mean a classzone
    > then I'd be fine to giveup on my wording, I don't care to retain my
    > wording, but to me classzone sounds more self explanatory than
    > alloc_type (though I must be biased having invented that word).
    > > maybe could you add a little comment along the lines of the above?
    > sure. done here:

    sorry there was a small buglet, when testing I must have tweaked the
    sysctl before sysrq+m so I overlooked it until now when I was playing
    with a new feature (the other version of the patch against 2.6.5 that I
    tested more closely didn't miss the below)

    So it was disabled by default *still* ;)

    --- 1-lowmem_reserve/mm/page_alloc.c.~1~ 2004-10-28 01:56:50.000000000 +0200
    +++ 1-lowmem_reserve/mm/page_alloc.c 2004-10-28 02:18:39.160567304 +0200
    @@ -1916,6 +1916,7 @@ static int __init init_per_zone_pages_mi
    if (min_free_kbytes > 16384)
    min_free_kbytes = 16384;
    + setup_per_zone_lowmem_reserve();
    return 0;

    full update ready to be merged is here:

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.044 / U:7.156 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site