Re: [patch 10/10] mm: workingset: keep shadow entries in check

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 02:12:02PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > But given that, sure maybe 1 memory size is a bit strict, but surely we
> > can put a limit on things at about 2 memory sizes?
> 
> That's what this 10/10 patch does (prune everything older than 2 *
> global_dirtyable_memory()), so I think we're talking past each other.
> 
> Maybe the wording of the changelog was confusing?  The paragraph you
> quoted above explains the problem resulting from 9/10 but which this
> patch 10/10 fixes.

Could be I just didn't read very well -- I pretty much raced through the
patches trying to get a general overview and see if I could spot
something weird.

I'll try again and let you know :-)
--
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/