Re: [patch] Reset the high water marks in CPUs pcp list

Rohit Seth
2005-09-29T16:34:19Z

On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 16:49 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:

> I don't see that there would be any problems with playing with the
> ->high and ->low numbers so long as they are a reasonable multiple
> of batch, however I would question the merit of setting the high
> watermark of the cold queue to ->batch + 1 (should really stay at
> 2*batch IMO).
>

I agree that this watermark is little low at this point. But that is
mainly because currently we don't have a way to drain the pcps for low
memory conditions. Once I add that support, I will bump up the high
water marks.

Can you share a list of specific workloads that you ran earlier while
fixing these numbers.

-rohit