Re: [PATCH] prevent kswapd from freeing excessive amounts of lowmem

Andrew Morton wrote:

I guess for a very small upper zone and a very large lower zone this could
still put the scan balancing out of whack, fixable by a smarter version of
"8*zone->pages_high" but it doesn't seem very likely that this will affect
things much.

Why doesn't direct reclaim need similar treatment?

Because we only go into the direct reclaim path once
every zone is at or below zone->pages_low, and the
direct reclaim path will exit once we have freed more
than swap_cluster_max pages.

--
Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country
the best in the world, and those who believe it already is.  Each group
calls the other unpatriotic.
-
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: [PATCH] prevent kswapd from freeing excessive amounts of lowmem
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] prevent kswapd from freeing excessive amounts of lowmem
    • From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] prevent kswapd from freeing excessive amounts of lowmem
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Unionfs: cache-coherency - dentries
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] prevent kswapd from freeing excessive amounts of lowmem
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] prevent kswapd from freeing excessive amounts of lowmem
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]