Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] beat kswapd with the proverbial clue-bat | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:37:10 +0200 |
| |
On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 19:24, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > Hmm, and the crowning argument for not stopping at order 3 is that if we > > never use higher order allocations, nothing will care about their watermarks > > anyway. I think I had myself confused when that question in the first place. > > > > So yeah, stopping at a fixed number isn't required, and as you say it keeps > > things general and special cases minimal. > > Hey, please refute my "you need 20% free" to get even to order-3 for most > cases first. > > It's probably acceptable to have a _very_ backgrounded job that does > freeing if order-3 isn't available, but it had better be pretty > slow-moving, I suspect. On the order of "It's probably ok to try to aim > for up to 25% free 'overnight' if the machine is idle" but it's almost > certainly not ok to aggressively push things out to that degree..
well... we have a reverse mapping now. What is stopping us from doing physical defragmentation ?
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |