On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue 03-05-11 10:01:27, Ying Han wrote:

quoted

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue 03-05-11 16:45:23, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

quoted

2011/5/3 Michal Hocko [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Sun 01-05-11 15:06:02, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Mon 25-04-11 18:28:49, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Can you please clarify this? I feel it is not opposite semantics.

In the global reclaim low watermark represents the point when we _start_
background reclaim while high watermark is the _stopper_. Watermarks are
based on the free memory while this proposal makes it based on the used
memory.
I understand that the result is same in the end but it is really
confusing because you have to switch your mindset from free to used and
from under the limit to above the limit.

Ah, right. So, do you have an alternative idea?

Why cannot we just keep the global reclaim semantic and make it free
memory (hard_limit - usage_in_bytes) based with low limit as the trigger
for reclaiming?

[...]

quoted

The current scheme

What is the current scheme?

using the "usage_in_bytes" instead of "free"

--Ying

quoted

is closer to the global bg reclaim which the low is triggering reclaim
and high is stopping reclaim. And we can only use the "usage" to keep
the same API.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>