Re: [discuss] Re: 32-bit dma allocations on 64-bit platforms

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 07:32:36PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I did quite a few times and it was successfully merged in 2.4. Now I'd
> need to forward port to 2.6.
> I recall I recommended Andrew to merge the lower_zone_reserve_ratio
> at some point during 2.5 or early 2.6 but apparently he implemented this
> other thing called sysctl_lower_zone_protection. Note that now that I
> look more into it, it seems sysctl_lower_zone_protection and
> lower_zone_reserve_ratio have very little in common, I'm glad
> sysctl_lower_zone_protection is disabled.  sysctl_lower_zone_protection
> is just an improvement to the algorithm I dropped from 2.4 when
> lowmem_zone_reserve_ratio was merged.  So in short enabling
> sysctl_lower_zone_protection won't help, sysctl_lower_zone_protection
> should be dropped enterely and replaced with lower_zone_reserve_ratio.

Could you refer me to an online source (e.g. Message-Id or URL) where
the deficiencies in the incremental min and/or lower_zone_protection
that the zone-to-zone watermarks address are described in detail?


-- wli