Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-10,: Re: 2.1.89 broken?

# Re: 2.1.89 broken?

Dr. Werner Fink (werner@suse.de)
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:30:16 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Garst R. Reese: "Re: not enough memory"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: little 2.1.90p2 typo"
- Maybe in reply to: Pavel Machek: "2.1.89 broken?"

> I've still got some Digital Unix-like balancing code
> lying around...
> Basically, you can set 3 values for the buffer/page
> cache, a minimum value, a maximum value and a steal
> value. When the buffer/page memory is above steal
> level and the system needs memory, it'll steal memory
> from the page cache first. A good default would be
> 25% of main memory. Of course, these values will be
> sysctl controllable (we still got 8 unused variables
> in swap_control ;-).

Does this mean that mm/filemap.c:shrink_mmap() would call
for it's self in mm/vmscan.c:kswapd() if the level is above
the limit? ... without using mm/vmscan.c:(do_)try_to_free_page()
to become the buffer down without trashing the tasks?

This would need also a wrapper as it does for
do_try_to_free_page() to set/unset the kernel locks.

And this upper limit should be calculated dynamically because
there is a `small' difference between a 8Mb and a 512Mb
system ... the first systems should have a smaller amount
of buffer/cache to keep the system running :-)

Werner

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

- Next message: Garst R. Reese: "Re: not enough memory"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: little 2.1.90p2 typo"
- Maybe in reply to: Pavel Machek: "2.1.89 broken?"