From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c37so624128wra.26 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <84144f020803190820o51b7af2bpf0e8f4cec62a2980@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:20:41 +0200 From: "Pekka Enberg" Subject: Re: [patch 7/9] slub: Adjust order boundaries and minimum objects per slab. In-Reply-To: <1205888669.3215.587.camel@ymzhang> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080317230516.078358225@sgi.com> <20080317230529.474353536@sgi.com> <47E00FEF.10604@cs.helsinki.fi> <1205888669.3215.587.camel@ymzhang> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Zhang, Yanmin" Cc: Christoph Lameter , Mel Gorman , Matt Mackall , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Yanmin, On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > In the other hand, memory is very cheap now. Usually users could install lots of memory > in server. So the competition among processors/processes are more severe. Sure, but don't forget we have embedded users as well. On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > If both processor number and amount of memory are the input factor for min objects, I have > no objections but asking highlighting processer number. If not, I will like to choose processor > number. I'm ok with your current scheme as it works nicely with low-end machines as well. I was just curious to hear how you came up with that. -- 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: email@kvack.org