From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266894AbUIERhd (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:37:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266892AbUIERhd (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:37:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:19125 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266894AbUIERhT (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:37:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] beat kswapd with the proverbial clue-bat From: Arjan van de Ven Reply-To: arjanv@redhat.com To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Nick Piggin , "David S. Miller" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <413AA7B2.4000907@yahoo.com.au> <20040904230210.03fe3c11.davem@davemloft.net> <413AAF49.5070600@yahoo.com.au> <413AE6E7.5070103@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-gBFueCUhQyrMDSObYYqC" Organization: Red Hat UK Message-Id: <1094405830.2809.8.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:37:10 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-gBFueCUhQyrMDSObYYqC Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 19:24, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, Nick Piggin wrote: > >=20 > > Hmm, and the crowning argument for not stopping at order 3 is that if w= e > > never use higher order allocations, nothing will care about their water= marks > > anyway. I think I had myself confused when that question in the first p= lace. > >=20 > > So yeah, stopping at a fixed number isn't required, and as you say it k= eeps > > things general and special cases minimal. >=20 > Hey, please refute my "you need 20% free" to get even to order-3 for most > cases first. >=20 > It's probably acceptable to have a _very_ backgrounded job that does > freeing if order-3 isn't available, but it had better be pretty > slow-moving, I suspect. On the order of "It's probably ok to try to aim > for up to 25% free 'overnight' if the machine is idle" but it's almost > certainly not ok to aggressively push things out to that degree.. well... we have a reverse mapping now. What is stopping us from doing physical defragmentation ? --=-gBFueCUhQyrMDSObYYqC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBO07FxULwo51rQBIRAkhTAKCRUI8TVsSPkr894h/GVNPCG1uR2ACeOrFx B27Xlikn4ADanXmjsAub4K8= =gNLr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-gBFueCUhQyrMDSObYYqC--