[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: lowmem_reserve (replaces protection)
    On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 08:31:32PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, 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;
    > Speaking about not proliferating...
    > One thing we need to make sure of is that the lower zone
    > protection stuff doesn't put the allocation threshold
    > higher than kswapd's freeing threshold.

    I agree. I didn't introduce that bug, the very same problem would happen
    with the previous protection code. So this is not a regression, I'm far
    from finished... I'm just trying to post orthogonal patches, since Hugh
    had a much better merging success rate with small patches (though I find
    very hard to produce small patches myself when there's more than one
    thing to fix in the same file).

    the per-classzone kswapd treshold was very well taken care of in 2.4,
    thanks the watermarks embedding the low/min/high and the classzone being
    passed up to the kswapd wakeup function.

    > Otherwise on a 1GB system, we'll end up cycling most of
    > userspace allocations through the 128MB highmem zone,
    > instead of falling back to the other zones.

    that's the side effect of the per-zone lru too (though I'm not going to
    change the lru).
    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:0.020 / U:7.444 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site