From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:35:28 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19 In-Reply-To: <314480000.1131043874@[10.10.2.4]> Message-ID: References: <4366C559.5090504@yahoo.com.au><20051101135651.GA8502@elte.hu><1130854224.14475.60.camel@localhost><20051101142959.GA9272@elte.hu><1130856555.14475.77.camel@localhost><20051101150142.GA10636@elte.hu><1130858580.14475.98.camel@localhost><20051102084946.GA3930@elte.hu><436880B8.1050207@yahoo.com.au><1130923969.15627.11.camel@localhost><43688B74.20002@yahoo.com.au><255360000.1130943722@[10.10.2.4]><4369824E.2020407@yahoo.com.au> <1131040786.2839.18.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <312300000.1131041824@[10.10.2.4]> <314480000.1131043874@[10.10.2.4]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Mel Gorman , Nick Piggin , Dave Hansen , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , kravetz@us.ibm.com, linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , lhms , Arjan van de Ven List-ID: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > Possibly, I can redo the calculations easily enough (have to go for now, > but I just sent the other ones). But we don't keep a fixed percentage of > memory free - we cap it ... perhaps we should though? I suspect the capping may well be from some old HIGHMEM interaction on x86 (ie "don't keep half a gig free in the normal zone just because we have 16GB in the high-zone". We used to have serious balancing issues, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are remnants from that. Stuff that simply hasn't been visible, because not a lot of people had many many GB of memory even on machines that didn't need HIGHMEM. Linus -- 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