On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > But pages_min is based on the zone size, not the system size. And we > still cap it. Maybe that's just a mistake? The per-zone watermarking is actually the "modern" and "working" approach. We didn't always do it that way. I would not be at all surprised if the capping was from the global watermarking days. Of course, I would _also_ not be at all surprised if it wasn't just out of habit. Most of the things where we try to scale things up by memory size, we cap for various reasons. Ie we tend to try to scale things like hash sizes for core data structures by memory size, but then we tend to cap them to "sane" versions. So quite frankly, it's entirely possible that the capping is there not because it _ever_ was a good idea, but just because it's what we almost always do ;) Mental inertia is definitely alive and well. Linus - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- References:
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- Prev by Date: Re: Problems with 2.6.13.4 and sws2 2.2-rc6
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 30/37] dvb: add nxt200x frontend module
- Previous by thread: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- Next by thread: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- Index(es):