Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964780AbVLBCDp (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:03:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964786AbVLBCDp (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:03:45 -0500 Received: from ns.ustc.edu.cn ([202.38.64.1]:10154 "EHLO mx1.ustc.edu.cn") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964780AbVLBCDo (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:03:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:04:07 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang To: Andrew Morton Cc: marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, christoph@lameter.com, riel@redhat.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, npiggin@suse.de, andrea@suse.de, magnus.damm@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] mm: supporting variables and functions for balanced zone aging Message-ID: <20051202020407.GA4445@mail.ustc.edu.cn> Mail-Followup-To: Wu Fengguang , Andrew Morton , marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, christoph@lameter.com, riel@redhat.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, npiggin@suse.de, andrea@suse.de, magnus.damm@gmail.com References: <20051201101810.837245000@localhost.localdomain> <20051201101933.936973000@localhost.localdomain> <20051201023714.612f0bbf.akpm@osdl.org> <20051201222846.GA3646@dmt.cnet> <20051201150349.3538638e.akpm@osdl.org> <20051202011924.GA3516@mail.ustc.edu.cn> <20051201173015.675f4d80.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051201173015.675f4d80.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 873 Lines: 21 On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:30:15PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > But lines 865-866 together with line 846 make most shrink_zone() invocations > > only run one batch of scan. The numbers become: > > True. Need to go into a huddle with the changelogs, but I have a feeling > that lines 865 and 866 aren't very important. What happens if we remove > them? Maybe the answer is: can we accept to free 15M memory at one time for a 64G zone? (Or can we simply increase the DEF_PRIORITY?) btw, maybe it's time to lower the low_mem_reserve. There should be no need to keep ~50M free memory with the balancing patch. Regards, Wu - 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/