From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:44:20 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][for -mm] memory controller enhancements for reclaiming take2 [0/8] introduction Message-Id: <20071205094420.9967bab8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <47556341.4090101@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20071203183355.0061ddeb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <47556341.4090101@linux.vnet.ibm.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: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "containers@lists.osdl.org" , Andrew Morton , "yamamoto@valinux.co.jp" , "riel@redhat.com" , xemul@openvz.org List-ID: On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:55:05 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > KAMEZAWA-San, what happens if we use a little less aggressive set of > watermarks, something like > > 700/300 > will test today. you mean low=300M, high=700M, limit=800M case ? > Can we keep the defaults something close to what each zone uses? > pages_low, pages_high and pages_min. > After review of Pavel-san, "don't define *default* value" style is used here. If we use default value, we'll have to detect "we should adjust high/low watermarks when the limit changes." That will complicate things and may crash the system administrators policy. It's not havey work to adjust high/low limit to sutitable value (which was defined against the workload by system admin) at setting limit. Thanks, -kame -- 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