On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:22:16 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > +#define UNMAPPED_PAGE_RATIO 16 > > > > > > Well. Giving 16 a name didn't really clarify anything. Attentive > > > readers will want to know what this does, why 16 was chosen and what > > > the effects of changing it will be. > > > > The meaning is analoguous to the other zone reclaim ratio. But yes it > > should be justified and defined. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > So you're OK with shoving all this flotsam into 100,000,000 cellphones? > > > This was a pretty outrageous patchset! > > > > This is a feature that has been requested over and over for years. Using > > /proc/vm/drop_caches for fixing situations where one simply has too many > > page cache pages is not so much fun in the long run. > > I'm not against page cache limitation feature at all. But, this is > too ugly and too destructive fast path. I hope this patch reduce negative > impact more. > And I think min_mapped_unmapped_pages is ugly. It should be "unmapped_pagecache_limit" or some because it's for limitation feature. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>