On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 16:49 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:

I don't see that there would be any problems with playing with the
->high and ->low numbers so long as they are a reasonable multiple
of batch, however I would question the merit of setting the high
watermark of the cold queue to ->batch + 1 (should really stay at
2*batch IMO).

I agree that this watermark is little low at this point.  But that is
mainly because currently we don't have a way to drain the pcps for low
memory conditions.  Once I add that support, I will bump up the high
water marks.

Can you share a list of specific workloads that you ran earlier while
fixing these numbers.

-rohit

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>