Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:53:15 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: add dirty_highmem option |
| |
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:24:24 +1100 "Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:54:28 -0800, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org> said: > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:42:04 +1100 Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> > > wrote: > > > > > /* > > > + * free highmem will not be subtracted from the total free memory > > > + * for calculating free ratios if vm_dirty_highmem is true > > > + */ > > > +int vm_dirty_highmem; > > > > One would expect that setting dirty_highmem to true would cause highmem > > to > > be accounted in dirty-memory calculations. However with this change > > reality is in fact the inverse of that. > > > > So how about this? > > Actually, I'm confused now. Maybe I chose a bad name to begin with. > Does it mean "I am allowed to dirty high memory" or "my high memory > will be dirty if this is on"?
But we're always allowed to dirty highmem - there'd be no point in having it otherwise. Hence the term dirty_highmem is confusing.
umm, really you want /proc/sys/vm/dont-account-highmem-in-dirty-memory-calculations, only shorter.
Do you agree?
If so, then it's still not a very pleasing interface - setting something to "true" to disable a particular piece of kernel behaviour implies a single negation which we don't really need.
It would be simpler to have /proc/sys/vm/do-account-highmem-in-dirty-memory-calculations, defaulting to "true" - this has no negations.
So... how about /proc/sys/vm/, umm.
<looks at inbox, brain explodes>
OK, I give up. Please see if you can think of something less confusing which involves no negations?
Thanks. - 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/
| |