From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4192C32E.6070001@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:41:02 +1100 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] higher order watermarks References: <417F5584.2070400@yahoo.com.au> <417F55B9.7090306@yahoo.com.au> <417F5604.3000908@yahoo.com.au> <20041104085745.GA7186@logos.cnet> <20041110162311.GA12696@logos.cnet> In-Reply-To: <20041110162311.GA12696@logos.cnet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List-ID: Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:57:45AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > >>The original code didnt had the can_try_harder/gfp_high decrease >>which is now on zone_watermark_ok. >> >>Means that those allocations will now be successful earlier, instead >>of going to the next zonelist iteration. kswapd will not be awake >>when it used to be. >> >>Hopefully it doesnt matter that much. You did this by intention? > > > Another thing Nick is that now balance_pgdat uses zone_watermark_ok, > and that sums "z->protection[alloc_type]". > > if (free_pages <= min + z->protection[alloc_type]) > return 0; > > Since balance_pgdat calls with alloc_type=0, the code will sum ZONE_DMA > (alloc_type = 0) protection, and it should not. > > kswapd should be working on the bare min/low/high watermarks AFAICT, > without the protections. > > Comments? > > Yeah.. I think z->protection[0] should always be 0, shouldn't it? I was just hesitant to add another parameter to the function and have yet another case to check. -- 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