From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/9] abstract kvm x86 mmu->n_free_mmu_pages Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:40:40 +0300 Message-ID: <4C188E08.3060806@redhat.com> References: <20100615135518.BC244431@kernel.beaverton.ibm.com> <20100615135519.00781795@kernel.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Hansen Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64160 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753421Ab0FPIkn (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:40:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100615135519.00781795@kernel.beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/15/2010 04:55 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > First of all, I think "free" is a poor name for this value. In > this context, it means, "the number of mmu pages which this kvm > instance should be able to allocate." To me, "free" implies > much more that the objects are there and ready for use. I think > "available" is a much better description, especially when you > see how it is calculated. > > Agreed. Note that if reclaim is improved, we can drop it completely and let the kernel trim the cache when it grows too large. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function