From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:34:26 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] prevent kswapd from freeing excessive amounts of lowmem Message-Id: <20070906153426.a173f8e2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <46E02CF5.3020301@redhat.com> References: <46DF3545.4050604@redhat.com> <20070905182305.e5d08acf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <46E02CF5.3020301@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, safari-kernel@safari.iki.fi List-ID: > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:38:13 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > (What happened to the other stuff I said?) > > I guess for a very small upper zone and a very large lower zone this could > > still put the scan balancing out of whack, fixable by a smarter version of > > "8*zone->pages_high" but it doesn't seem very likely that this will affect > > things much. > > > > Why doesn't direct reclaim need similar treatment? > > Because we only go into the direct reclaim path once > every zone is at or below zone->pages_low, and the > direct reclaim path will exit once we have freed more > than swap_cluster_max pages. > hm. Now I need to remember why direct-reclaim does that :( -- 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