Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:54:25 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 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 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/
| |