On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 16:49 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I don't see that there would be any problems with playing with the
> ->high and ->low numbers so long as they are a reasonable multiple
> of batch, however I would question the merit of setting the high
> watermark of the cold queue to ->batch + 1 (should really stay at
> 2*batch IMO).
>
I agree that this watermark is little low at this point. But that is
mainly because currently we don't have a way to drain the pcps for low
memory conditions. Once I add that support, I will bump up the high
water marks.
Can you share a list of specific workloads that you ran earlier while
fixing these numbers.
-rohit
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |