>> 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. Ha ;-) Well thanks for the explanation. I would suggest the patch I sent you makes some semblence of sense then ... M. - 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/
- 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
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 26/37] dvb: add support for plls used by nxt200x
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 5/9] kconfig: update kconfig Makefile
- 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):