[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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.

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 13:28    [W:0.072 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site