Re: [PATCH 02/12] mm: supporting variables and functions for balancedzone aging

[Nick Piggin]

Wu Fengguang wrote:
> 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?)

0.02% of the memory? Why not? I think you should be more worried
about what happens when the priority winds up.

I think your proposal to synch reclaim rates between zones is fine
when all pages have similar properties, but could behave strangely
when you do have different requirements on different zones.

> 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.

min_free_kbytes? This number really isn't anything to do with balancing
and more to do with the amount of reserve kept for things like GFP_ATOMIC
and recursive allocations. Let's not lower it ;)

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/