From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from Galois.suse.de (Galois.suse.de [195.125.217.193]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA32742 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 16:28:21 -0400 Message-ID: <19980722222736.49195@boole.suse.de> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:27:36 +0200 From: "Dr. Werner Fink" Subject: Re: 2.1.110 freepages.min change References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Rik van Riel on Wed, Jul 22, 1998 at 06:12:37PM +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Linux Kernel Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 1998 at 06:12:37PM +0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > Hi Linus, > > I've noticed that, in 2.1.110, the value for the > minimum amount of free pages changed from 48 to > 10. > > Considering the amount of fragmentation problems > observed and the numbers generated by your fragmentation > calculation program, this seems a tad on the low side... > > If fragmentation problems show up, I suggest we up this > limit again... > It seem's that if the limit is reached now the new try_to_free_pages instead of the old try_to_free_page(without s) function may free some more pages as requested ... in best case SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages are freed at once ... looks good Linus. Together with the increased count_max and count_min in shrink_mmap this one really makes sense. The change in fs/dcache.c does not look very well because as higher the number given to prune_dache in shrink_dcache_memory as more the dcache is pruned ... `0' isn't that good is it? Werner PS: I've updated my lowmem.patch to 2.1.110. I would like to hear some comments on it ... for more please see http://www.suse.de/~werner/patches/ -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org