From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758739AbZEFLo7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2009 07:44:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759198AbZEFLoi (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2009 07:44:38 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47297 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758432AbZEFLoh (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2009 07:44:37 -0400 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20090505151520.070c84c1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20090505151520.070c84c1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090505212638.17034.10989.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20090505212648.17034.18375.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Andrew Morton Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@suse.de, gerg@snapgear.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] NOMMU: Make the initial mmap allocation excess behaviour Kconfig configurable Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 12:42:41 +0100 Message-ID: <23252.1241610161@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Nasty problem. Yes. That's part of the fun of the NOMMU world. It has many of the same problems as the MMU world - just more exaggerated. > > -int sysctl_nr_trim_pages = 1; /* page trimming behaviour */ > > +int sysctl_nr_trim_pages = CONFIG_NOMMU_INITIAL_TRIM_EXCESS; > > int heap_stack_gap = 0; > > > > But there's a risk of -ENOMEM regression on other system here? There shouldn't be (assuming you mean with this patch), the default is the same as the original value. > It's unlikely to be a huge problem for real-world embedded developers, > as long as they know about this change. And because you set the > Kconfig default to "no change" then I guess they'll be none the wiser. > > I think that patches 2 and 3 (and #1 unless I reorder and redo things) > are 2.6.30 material. Agree? Assuming you mean go in before 2.6.30 is cut, then yes. If you want, I can reorder the patches to put #1 last. David