From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261773AbUBWDER (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:04:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261790AbUBWDER (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:04:17 -0500 Received: from mail-05.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.37]:7060 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261773AbUBWDEO (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:04:14 -0500 Message-ID: <40396DA7.70200@cyberone.com.au> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:04:07 +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> <40396ACD.7090109@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <40396ACD.7090109@cyberone.com.au> 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 Nick Piggin wrote: > > 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? > > Well no, because you can construct a similar "proof" for your patch because I assume balancing between zones is a two way operation :P. Actually, lowmem pressure does not assert highmem pressure which is the point where your balancing fails.