Re: [PATCH 2/3] higher order watermarks

[Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 12:41:02PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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?

Oh yes, fine.

> 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: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>