From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261793AbUBWDAV (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:00:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261796AbUBWDAV (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:00:21 -0500 Received: from mail-09.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.41]:34471 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261793AbUBWDAF (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:00:05 -0500 Message-ID: <40396ACD.7090109@cyberone.com.au> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:51:57 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.3-mm3 References: <20040222172200.1d6bdfae.akpm@osdl.org> <40395ACE.4030203@cyberone.com.au> <20040222175507.558a5b3d.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040222175507.558a5b3d.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: >Nick Piggin wrote: > >> >> >>Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> >>>ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.3/2.6.3-mm2/ >>> >>> >>> >>URL is of course, >>ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.3/2.6.3-mm3/ >> > >Yes, thanks. > > >>This still doesn't shrink slab correctly on highmem machines >>because you dropped my patch :( >> > >First, one needs to define "correctly". > >Certainly, it is not "solves the alleged updatedb problem". > >The design behind the slab shrinking is to reclaim slab in response to >memory demand. Not in response to lowmem demand. With all the scaling, >accounting-for-seeks-and-locality, etc. > > That is the wrong design. That is basically just circumventing zone balancing, and it shows because you don't balance slab vs lowmem properly. Lowmem pagecache vs highmem pagecache should be balanced correctly? I think it is with your other patches. Lowmem pagecache vs slab should be balanced correctly with my patch. Therefore highmem vs slab will be balanced correctly. Is that a good proof?