From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:16:23 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [BENCHMARKS] Namesys VM patches improve kbuild Message-ID: <20040122081623.GL1016@holomorphy.com> References: <400F630F.80205@cyberone.com.au> <20040121223608.1ea30097.akpm@osdl.org> <400F738A.40505@cyberone.com.au> <20040121230408.7b8b9a92.akpm@osdl.org> <400F7965.5050605@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <400F7965.5050605@cyberone.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Nikita@Namesys.COM List-ID: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:19:01PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Hmm, I actually did misread it a bit. The ratio is: > nr_pages * zone->nr_active / (zone->nr_inactive * 2) > Which is nr_pages if the active list is size we want. > So its not so bad as I thought. Scaling by nr_pages would > seem to couple it strongly with free pages though. My > patch makes it more independent. No I don't know if thats > good or not, it would obviously need a lot of testing. Could something symbolic be banged out to represent this "desired (in)active_list size" to reduce confusion? You're not the only one needing to review various calculations twice over or more at every turn. -- 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