From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <40105D73.3070202@cyberone.com.au> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:32:03 +1100 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [BENCHMARKS] Namesys VM patches improve kbuild 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> <20040122081623.GL1016@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20040122081623.GL1016@holomorphy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Nikita@Namesys.COM List-ID: William Lee Irwin III wrote: >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. > That probably would help. I still don't like the ratio that much but I guess it works. I'll see if I can get any improvements out of my version. -- 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