Re: [discuss] Re: 32-bit dma allocations on 64-bit platforms

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:48:47AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>> 2.6 has the "incremental min" thing. What is wrong with that?
>> Though I think it is turned off by default.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 06:52:01PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> sysctl_lower_zone_protection is an inferior implementation of the
> lower_zone_reserve_ratio, inferior because it has no way to give a
> different balance to each zone. As you said it's turned off by default
> so it had no tuning. The lower_zone_reserve_ratio has already been
> tuned in 2.4. Somebody can attempt a conversion but it'll never be equal
> since lower_zone_reserve_ratio is a superset of what
> sysctl_lower_zone_protection can do.

Is there any chance you could send in thise improved implementation of
zone fallback watermarks and describe the deficiencies in the current
scheme that it corrects?

Thanks.


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/