From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] page reclaim throttle take2 From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <47C526F8.8010807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <47C4EF2D.90508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080227143301.4252.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <47C4F9C0.5010607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <47C51856.7060408@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <47C526F8.8010807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:44:58 +0100 Message-Id: <1204105498.6242.374.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: David Rientjes , KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Rik van Riel , Lee Schermerhorn , Nick Piggin List-ID: On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 14:31 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > You mentioned CONFIG_NUM_RECLAIM_THREADS_PER_CPU and not > CONFIG_NUM_RECLAIM_THREADS_PER_NODE. The advantage with syscalls is that even if > we get the thing wrong, the system administrator has an alternative. Please look > through the existing sysctl's and you'll see what I mean. What is wrong with > providing the flexibility that comes with sysctl? We cannot possibly think of > all situations and come up with the right answer for a heuristic. Why not come > up with a default and let everyone use what works for them? I agree with Balbir, just turn it into a sysctl, its easy enough to do, and those who need it will thank you for it instead of curse you for hard coding it. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org