Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932871AbXATCfp (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:35:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932874AbXATCfp (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:35:45 -0500 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.226]:23288 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932871AbXATCfo (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:35:44 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=c00aXr1BJot/lCeGPp/QiDonEkVOyByHqBzitQxar3itxQ+4lXcycEU1byqyLX9k+wI9h8Msbt0Lg8zCLMFcFblZWsXlvblSc0GcM5yyR/MLI8AuvbBOfRlyohFamWeL9PdTx3Nc8VNfLzbh7AYQxO6nP6skjBwretIg90HigcI= Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0701191835y49a61e7jb65a3b63f906ca56@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:35:43 -0500 From: "Mike Frysinger" To: "Nick Piggin" Subject: Re: [RPC][PATCH 2.6.20-rc5] limit total vfs page cache Cc: "Aubrey Li" , "Vaidyanathan Srinivasan" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, "Linus Torvalds" , "Andrew Morton" , "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" , "Robin Getz" , "Hennerich, Michael" In-Reply-To: <45B17D6D.2030004@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <6d6a94c50701171923g48c8652ayd281a10d1cb5dd95@mail.gmail.com> <45B0DB45.4070004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6d6a94c50701190805saa0c7bbgbc59d2251bed8537@mail.gmail.com> <45B112B6.9060806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6d6a94c50701191804m79c70afdo1e664a072f928b9e@mail.gmail.com> <45B17D6D.2030004@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1099 Lines: 25 On 1/19/07, Nick Piggin wrote: > Luckily, there are actually good, robust solutions for your higher > order allocation problem. Do higher order allocations at boot time, > modifiy userspace applications, or set up otherwise-unused, or easily > reclaimable reserve pools for higher order allocations. I don't > understand why you are so resistant to all of these approaches? in a nutshell ... the idea is to try and generalize these things your approach involves tweaking each end solution to maximize the performance our approach is to teach the kernel some more tricks so that each solution need not be tweaked these are at obvious odds as they tackle the problem by going in pretty much opposite directions ... yours leads to a tighter system in the end, but ours leads to much more rapid development and deployment -mike - 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/