From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 03:51:34 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: 2.5.73-mm2 Message-ID: <20030701105134.GE26348@holomorphy.com> References: <20030701003958.GB20413@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> It was suggested during my last round of OOM killer fixes that one of >> my patches, which just checked nr_free_buffer_pages() > 0, should also >> consider userspace (i.e. reclaimable at will) memory free. On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:46:34AM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > If you pursued it, wouldn't your patch also need to change > nr_free_buffer_pages() to do what you think it does, count > the free lowmem pages? It, and nr_free_pagecache_pages(), > and nr_free_zone_pages(), are horribly badly named. They > count present_pages-pages_high, they don't count free pages: > okay for initialization estimates, useless for anything dynamic. > Hugh > p.s. any chance of some more imaginative Subject lines :-? Well, I was mostly looking for getting handed back 0 when lowmem is empty; I actually did realize they didn't give entirely accurate counts of free lowmem pages. -- wli -- 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: aart@kvack.org