Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] beat kswapd with the proverbial clue-bat

[Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1037 bytes --]

On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 19:24, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > 
> > Hmm, and the crowning argument for not stopping at order 3 is that if we
> > never use higher order allocations, nothing will care about their watermarks
> > anyway. I think I had myself confused when that question in the first place.
> > 
> > So yeah, stopping at a fixed number isn't required, and as you say it keeps
> > things general and special cases minimal.
> 
> Hey, please refute my "you need 20% free" to get even to order-3 for most
> cases first.
> 
> It's probably acceptable to have a _very_ backgrounded job that does
> freeing if order-3 isn't available, but it had better be pretty
> slow-moving, I suspect. On the order of "It's probably ok to try to aim
> for up to 25% free 'overnight' if the machine is idle" but it's almost
> certainly not ok to aggressively push things out to that degree..

well... we have a reverse mapping now. What is stopping us from doing
physical defragmentation ?


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]