Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261501AbUJ0BDa (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261436AbUJ0BDa (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:8374 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261520AbUJ0BAe (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:00:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:00:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com To: Andrea Arcangeli cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , Subject: Re: lowmem_reserve (replaces protection) In-Reply-To: <20041027005425.GO14325@dualathlon.random> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 954 Lines: 24 On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > 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. And it works fine on non-numa x86. However, doesn't the protection also serve a purpose for NUMA fallback ? How is that handled by your code ? NUMA wasn't very important a few years ago, but with AMD64 systems being common, it is an important consideration now. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan - 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/