From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:33:25 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Might refill_inactive_zone () be too aggressive? Message-ID: <20040417183325.GN743@holomorphy.com> References: <20040417060920.GC29393@flea> <20040417061847.GC743@holomorphy.com> <20040417175723.GA3235@flea> <20040417181042.GM743@holomorphy.com> <20040417182838.GA3856@flea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040417182838.GA3856@flea> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Marc Singer Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:10:42AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I'm not sure it's expected. Maybe this patch fares better? On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:28:38AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > Ah, that's a much different thing. That works for me. Is that > something you'd want to put into the kernel? Since we have a coherent story about this working for you, I think we should probably send it upstream for review. I don't have a particular opinion about it being the right thing to do, as since it's a policy decision, it's rather arbitrary. If this is important to you, it may help to numerically quantify your results, e.g. some before/after benchmark/throughput/whatever numbers. -- 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