On Tue 03-05-11 10:01:27, Ying Han wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 03-05-11 16:45:23, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> 2011/5/3 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>: > >> > On Sun 01-05-11 15:06:02, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> >> > On Mon 25-04-11 18:28:49, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: [...] > >> >> 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? > [...] > The current scheme What is the current scheme? > 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@xxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>